http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2871/is-nasa-the-only-federal-agency-that-makes-a-profit
I believe that government agencies and departments are not supposed to make a profit. It may even be illegal. If they did - who would get the money - the appointed or elected directors, or maybe raises for the civil servants? If there is more money coming in then going out then the overage goes back into the government pool and the agencies’ budget for the next year is usually decreased.
Do you mean to refer to Is NASA the only federal agency that makes a profit??
If a government agency makes a surplus of revenue over expenditure (which is not called a “profit” by accountants, but just a “surplus”), then generally that surplus goes to fund other government activities.
Depends on the mandate and the laws. For example, the department that registers radio licenses (FCC?) was allowed to charge a fee to cover admin costs. Around 1980 when CB radio took off, IIRC they were charging a fee in the $80 range, which was highway robbery. Suddenly everyone wanted one and they collected a HUGE amount of money over and above radio registration overhead.
A few lawyers later, the courts made them “give it back”, whatever that turned out to be. Basically, the court said they were not allowed to charge money beyond administrative costs without specific authorization from congress so the amount they asked was so far beyond need as to be unauthorized taxation.
Mind you, this was an admin fee, so it was more like a tax than a “fee for service”. If you are selling a normal market service, I guess it depends whether you as a department are authorized to make a profit or just cover costs. A license isn’t a service, since it’s an unneccessary bueaucratic intrusion. A license required by law that otherwise is totally unnecessary is a tax. A freight fee to ride a rocket to orbit is a market service, since you can get the same elsewhere from Russia or Europe.
I guess the question is, when the fees were authorized, what were they earmarked for? Park fees for example help maintain the park, or the general area. However, people might have a problem if their fees for entry to Yellowstone or Statue of Liberty were doubled for maintaining some park in Texas or Cheneyland. However, using Liberty Island fees to maintain Ellis Island too, might be a valid use. People would complain to their congresscritter, after enough of them got riled, they would probably try set things straight.
To emphasize it, this is simply not true.
And since this sentence contradicts the above, you must know that no such illegality exists.
Government as a whole is theoretically supposed to break even. Most states have balanced budget laws to ensure this. However, revenues are a complex combination of taxes, fees, earnings, payments, interest, and sales. Some divisions in governments are more able to collect money than others. It is usually the case that surpluses go into the general fund to be reallocated as needed, just as it is usually the case that all incoming money goes to the general fund no matter how it is generated, but in some specific cases the money may be applied directly. It depends. The federal government is too complex to make any generalizations about.
When a government agency has a surplus, they are either defunded by that amount in the next fiscal year or adjusts their next budget claiming a need for that additional amount. Typically, the latter happens.
The Patient Office is supported directly by the fees paid for Patient submissions. They regularly ‘give’ back their ‘surplus’ to the Feds.
>The Patient Office is supported directly by the fees paid for Patient submissions
My impresssion is that the PTO maintenance fees are wildly “profitable,” since the PTO is collecting money for no real service other than keeping the patent in force. My suspicion is that the various fees paid for application and prosecution might or might not cover the true costs of examination. That’s splitting hairs, though–overall the USPTO definately pays money into the general fund.
–Steve
Patience is definitely necessary when applying for a patent.
Maybe I missed something, but I think the article left out the matter of collectors. When the Mint makes interesting coins, most of them are never spent. Almost all of the dollar coins (the Susies, the Sackies, and the presidents) made in recent years are socked away somewhere. So, the Mint gets, besides the difference between the cost of making the coin and a dollar, a one dollar profit. You pay a dollar for a coin, and never use it to buy a dollar’s worth of anything.
Similarly, but more directly, many commemorative stamps are never used. Normally, you buy a forty-four cent stamp, and the government owes you a service. If you never use that stamp to mail anything, the USPS profits.
To make things a little more mysterious, there’s the federal duck stamp. It’s a work of art, different each year, sold to bird hunters. It’s a collector’s item, but if you buy one, and don’t hunt waterfowl that year, the government probably won’t spend any less money keeping an eye on the ducks.
I was a little surprised that Cecil didn’t mention the USPS in the article, myself.
The USPS has not technically been “government” since Nixons’s day. The USPO was.
They may not be “government,” but their monopoly certainly comes from the government.
The patient office actually weeds out the conflicting claims for new patents and does not allow a new patent to be issued if a valid patent is found that it is in existence. Great racket for the patent lawyers. They try to submit a ‘wide’ patent when they only have a basis for a ‘narrow’ one, and charge up the wazoo to their clients for their wasted efforts.
Stop saying “patient office” ! It makes me want to ask about fees paid by people who are in a hurry!
>They try to submit a ‘wide’ patent when they only have a basis for a ‘narrow’ one
It’s very easy to write very narrow claims that will probably get a first-action allowance–and that have no real value to the patentee. Do you want a solid patent that protects commercially viable claims? Or do you want to build your business on something cheap, quick–and unenforcable? Choose wisely my friend.
I see where you are coming from, but:
sorry, I was not born with the spelling gene.
The USPS is an odd platypus among government agencies. It’s not a gov-owned corporation. Some say it’s an independent gov agency, but it isn’t very independent. Figuratively speaking, the USPS can’t brush its own teeth without checking with some executive branch committee. Some say it’s quasi-governmental. 
Nine of its board members are appointed by the president, and they appoint the Postmaster General, their tenth member. :dubious:
Exapno Mapcase, I’m not sure what you intend to offer to this topic but pseudo-expert ramblings and quotations from high school civic books are not real helpful. No matter how “complex” the federal government is - it cannot CANNOT make a profit. It is the whole concept of a federal balanced budget. It may or may not be illegal (depends on definitions) but the idea of not making a profit is considered by most federal agencies & departments as sacrosanct. Each part of the government must plan on how much money they will need to just break even. This money is supplied either from the federal government (from taxes) as part of their annual budget or through other means such as selling services & products to the public. There is always the chance that an agency will make more money than it had planned. This is called ‘surplus’ and not ‘profit’ and it must go back into the government pool. And, as I said, this surplus will be considered in the next year budget and possibly the agency will receive less money from the government or be required to charge less for services and products. We all know that the budget can be manipulated by those pols in power and some administrations have been more interested in balance than others. But those actual workers in the government - the non-elected or appointed, the ones who work day-to-day and administration-to-administration - the concept of keeping both sides of the ledger even is paramount and not just a guideline or recommendation. Not sure where the contradiction is in this that you refer. Of course, the federal government is “too complex” but it does not mean that there are laws, rules, regulations. media exposure and other controls over the money flow. Do you think that it is all some unfathomable, untrackable beast that does what it wants?
What does profit have to do with government? The United States government is not a business and does not have a profit motive. Does the Marine Corps make a profit? Does your local high school make a profit? Does the Catholic Church make a profit? Does your family make a profit?