>From a lurker. > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: budgeting > On 30 Sep, Josh Sled wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:06:00PM -0700, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > | FWIW, I don't personally care to know *where* my budgeted money is - I > > | have to manage my *physical* account balances separately from my > > | *logical* bucket system anyway. > > > > I think some people will care where it is, especially as it influences > > how accessible it is. > > You're thinking maybe someone wants to buy groceries using their Debit > Card, so they need to know not only how much is available in their > budget, but how much is physically available in their checking account. > I can see the importance of this, but I still think this is the user's > responsibility, not the budgeting subsystem's. I think we'll be > creating a monster otherwise...
Would this be something that could be made to be a report thingie? > > I think for medium-to-long-term savings goals, it makes sense to take > > advantage of accounts available, such as moving savings out of my BofA > > savings account [at like 1% or whatever it is] and into a money-market > > [at like 4%]... or into a mutual fund which expects to get 10% over time... > > Again, I consider that to be the user's responsibility. The budgeting > subsystem doesn't have to know about that. The budget should work: if I have only one bank account that does every thing. A bank account for every expense category > I'm not trying to say that > it doesn't *matter* where the funds are, just that it shouldn't matter > to the *budgeting* subsystem. Maybe we need a separate "financial > planning" subsystem... I tend to agree here. There is a place for working out where the funds should be but your `lets-tell-the-user-how-to-make-the-most-of-his-money' is very computationally intensive and requires the knowledge of what are the constraints and how to state them so that you have a problem that a) has a solution and b) that solution makes sense. Thus should be a second or even third round addition. > </snip> > > Well, there's a change in your available credit, which may be interesting > > for other calculations. As well, there's the change in the 'used' amount > > of the budgeting category/bucket. > > Sure, but the latter isn't a *physical* transfer of funds. There's no > associated *physical* account change. Which is the question, How do you record the price change of a stock when you have not bought or sold any your self at that time, under another guise. > </snip> > Oh, I'm not sure I like the way this is going. I can see how that data > would be interesting, and why you'd bring it up (and there may be a > really good economic reason, too - I'm not an economics guy), but I'm > concerned that pretty soon my *single* credit card payment needs to be > associated with expenses *all*over*the*place*. This is a problem that has turned up previously with respect to the account hierarchy and where do you place transactions that logically occur in two different branches. > </snip> > What would you use the "used:held" and "used:disbursed" numbers for? > Some kind of "this money as been logically spent but physically exists" > calculation? A accounts payable/receivable type thing?? Phill _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
