RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[David T. via gnucash-user]

Matt, 
I have to admit that I misread the tally; I did not see that the first $500 
(AllocatedCash) was balancing the others. My apologies. 
I'll let you and Adrien work this out, since I don't have a lot of background 
in this. 
David

 
 
  On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:58, Matt Graham<matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote: 
  #yiv0595440679 #yiv0595440679 -- _filtered #yiv0595440679 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0595440679 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;}#yiv0595440679 #yiv0595440679 p.yiv0595440679MsoNormal, #yiv0595440679 
li.yiv0595440679MsoNormal, #yiv0595440679 div.yiv0595440679MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0595440679 a:link, 
#yiv0595440679 span.yiv0595440679MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0595440679 a:visited, #yiv0595440679 
span.yiv0595440679MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0595440679 
.yiv0595440679MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0595440679 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv0595440679 div.yiv0595440679WordSection1 {}#yiv0595440679 
Hi Dave! 

  
 
Yep, that is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to. Not sure what you are 
asking about in “where are you balancing the funds”. The Cr and Dr are balanced 
in the example. Maybe you are asking the location in the hierarchy for the 
accounts? It all goes up to the root account “Assets”. For this idea, I had 
Current Assets, Fixed assets, and Allocated Assets. All the little allocation 
accounts were stored in the Allocated Assets branch.

They were balanced by a single account under current assets called 
“AllocatedCash” (as per the example below). This is the weird one – a negative 
asset account that reflects how much I SHOULDN’T spend out of current assets 
unless I am spending on my allocated causes.

  
 
As per Adrian’s discussions, if you are spending out of the account that you 
have put your sub-account into, then there are less splits and it is far easier 
to understand. Using Adrien’s idea, at WORST you have a couple of transactions 
that are just as complex as every transaction the other way – but this is only 
in the rare event that you spend out of a different account from that which 
your sub-account is in.

  
 
I still haven’t fully wrapped my head around Adrien’s most recent email, so 
that could create some more “Aha!” moments too.

  
 
Thanks and regards,

Matt

  
 
From: David T.
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 2:31 PM
To: matt_graham2...@hotmail.com;Adrien Monteleone; gnucash-user@gnucash.org
Subject: RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

  
 
Matt, 
 
  
 
I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated 
accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you 
might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway. 
 
  
 
Cheers,
 
David 
 
  
 

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham
 
<matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> 
 
  
 
[Snip]
 

If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there is no 
balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you had a 
balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a $1000 
pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts:
Cr Income: Salary $1000
Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000
Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation    $250
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance  $150
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining      $ 50
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee  $ 50
 
  
   
___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

Again, I think you’ve hit on it directly.

To answer your question, no I can’t think of a reporting advantage. As you 
outline, I think reports are generally flexible enough that you can tailor them 
to get what you want regardless, but the dual asset allocation accounts creates 
extra work for that too.

I fiddled with the Equity balancing Asset account concept you mentioned, and 
rejected it because of the ‘extra’ assets that appear. As you say, Equity 
balancing Equity is probably accurate, but just creates extra work. I’m pretty 
convinced that the simplest and most correct way to do this is to have a 
sub-account that you mostly spend out of. I have several accounts, but I do 
have one that is the main one, and I suspect that most people would.

Thanks again for all your help!

Matt

From: Adrien Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 12:11 PM
To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

Thanks for the run down Matt,

I wouldn’t say “stupid” at all, but certainly, that method is extra work. And I 
don’t really see the benefit that makes the work worth the trouble.

I also see that the transactions are more complicated, more cluttered, and if 
you ever have to go over them to track down an error, they are going to take 
more brain power to process and get straight.

Do you get any reporting advantage with that extra layer of splits?

This also requires constant reverse-balanced thinking. Something that in my 
experience is more taxing to make sure you’ve got the entries right.

I was using something similar about a year ago, but abandoned the whole project 
after a month because of the extra entries required for nearly every purchase. 
I suppose it isn’t so bad if you only earmark a few expense purposes, but even 
something like ‘vacation’ can end up with multiple expense accounts affected.

With the method I outlined, other than the simplicity, you also get a little 
extra discipline push if you divide up the sub-accounts based on the most 
likely physical account to draw from. (if you have more than one, I don’t) You 
also get to leverage the Cash Flow report to show you if you are pulling funds 
that are earmarked for other purposes, which can tell you if you should adjust 
those earmarks or improve your spending discipline. I suppose you could do the 
same with your virtual asset accounts, but I’d suspect the amounts would be 
reversed from what’s expected, making such a report difficult to follow.

I can see the appeal of keeping that tracking separate, but for the present 
state of GnuCash, I just think it’s not the easiest method, certainly not for 
new users. (you do get the benefit of deleting those special accounts without 
affecting your regular asset/expense entries should you abandon the practice 
and what to clean up your account tree IF those splits are NOT included in the 
regular transaction, but reside in their own set.)

The reason I suggested using equity accounts for that method was because the 
normal balance of equity accounts is credit positive. (as are liabilities) Thus 
if you moved those special accounts to the Equity hierarchy, their balances 
will look like they are supposed to. That would reduce the reverse-balanced 
mental gymnastics. (especially if your setting for Reversed Balanced Accounts 
is ‘Credit’)

If you’re not really segregating funds in their normal asset place, just adding 
a layer of info, it probably makes more sense to use equity instead of asset. 
In this case, the allocations aren’t actual physical assets, but just a 
budgeting category. Equity is YOUR claim against your assets, so saying you 
have $1000 to spend on vacation makes sense to me to say it in equity. (leaving 
aside that the actual funds reside in your asset savings account) Since this 
isn’t ‘extra’ equity (above and beyond your assets less your liabilities) you’d 
need a single ‘reverse-balanced’ account to fix that. You don’t want your 
assets or equity to be overstated, so that reverse balanced account should also 
be an equity account.

You could set it up like this:

Equity:Budgeting:Allocated
Equity:Budgeting:Vacation
Equity:Budgeting:Insurance
Equity:Budgeting:Dining
Equity:Budgeting:Coffe

Your Allocated account would have a reverse balance, thus a debit. It would 
show up as negative in GnuCash (with the Credit accounts setting)
Your special purpose accounts would all have a normal credit balance, and show 
up as positive. When they reach zero, you’ve spent everything you’ve budgeted 
for that purpose.

The only purpose of the ‘Allocated’ account is to prevent the special purpose 
accounts from affecting your total equity position. It will cause your 
Equity:Budgeting account parent to always be zero. (be sure to mark that parent 
as a placeholder as well) I suppose you could leave it off and just use the 
parent for balancing. That

RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

Hi Dave!

Yep, that is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to. Not sure what you are 
asking about in “where are you balancing the funds”. The Cr and Dr are balanced 
in the example. Maybe you are asking the location in the hierarchy for the 
accounts? It all goes up to the root account “Assets”. For this idea, I had 
Current Assets, Fixed assets, and Allocated Assets. All the little allocation 
accounts were stored in the Allocated Assets branch.
They were balanced by a single account under current assets called 
“AllocatedCash” (as per the example below). This is the weird one – a negative 
asset account that reflects how much I SHOULDN’T spend out of current assets 
unless I am spending on my allocated causes.

As per Adrian’s discussions, if you are spending out of the account that you 
have put your sub-account into, then there are less splits and it is far easier 
to understand. Using Adrien’s idea, at WORST you have a couple of transactions 
that are just as complex as every transaction the other way – but this is only 
in the rare event that you spend out of a different account from that which 
your sub-account is in.

I still haven’t fully wrapped my head around Adrien’s most recent email, so 
that could create some more “Aha!” moments too.

Thanks and regards,

Matt

From: David T.<mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 2:31 PM
To: matt_graham2...@hotmail.com<mailto:matt_graham2...@hotmail.com>; Adrien 
Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>; 
gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

Matt,

I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated 
accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you 
might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway.

Cheers,
David

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham
<matt_graham2...@hotmail.com>

[Snip]
If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there is no 
balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you had a 
balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a $1000 
pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts:
Cr Income: Salary $1000
Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000
Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation$250
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance  $150
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining  $ 50
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee  $ 50

___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[David T. via gnucash-user]

Matt,
I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated 
accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you 
might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway. 
Cheers,David 

 
 
  On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham 
[Snip]If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there 
is no balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you 
had a balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a 
$1000 pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts:
Cr Income: Salary $1000
Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000
Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation    $250
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance  $150
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining      $ 50
Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee  $ 50
  
___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

;  
> So after this transaction, the amounts in checking and the expense are as 
> you’d expect (again, no change from if you didn’t use allocations). The 
> Current assets have been increased – become less negative, because I have $20 
> less now allocated to Dining out. So there is now less money that I am 
> telling myself “can’t be spent”, but of course I haven’t gained more cash to 
> spend – this gain is offset by the reduce in cash from actually spending it. 
> My amount of cash allocated to Dining has been Dr (reduced) by $20 as you 
> expect. So I am left with $980 in my checking, $30 in my Allocated:Dining, 
> -$480 in my overall AllocatedCash.
>  
> You are probably thinking “That is stupid. Why bother?”. 
> You’re right – it is probably extra entries for little benefit. Hence why I’m 
> going to try it for a few weeks before recommending before/against it in the 
> tutorials and concepts guide and/or attempting/requesting features in GNUCash 
> to support it. 
> The main advantage here is that it separates the allocation of money from the 
> account you are going to spend it from. The spending transaction would be the 
> same size and type if I was using a sub-account and didn’t spend from that 
> sub account:
> Dr Expenses:Dining $20
> Cr Assets:MyCash $20
> Cr Assets:Checking:Dining $20
> Dr Assets:Checking $20
> 
> So if I (foolishly) chose a sub-account for allocation that I never spent 
> from, doing it the separated way is no extra work – still similar four 
> splits. But as you say, if you use a sub-account and spend from it most of 
> the time, the messy four line transaction becomes a simple 
> Cr Checking:Dining $20
> Dr Expenses:Dining $20
>  
> Does this make sense?
>  
> Thanks and regards,
> 
> Matt
>  
> From: Adrien Monteleone <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 6:45 PM
> To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
>  
> Matt,
> 
> You lost me again.
> 
> I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset.
> 
> You receive a paycheck, say $1000.
> 
> You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts.
> 
> You still have $1000.
> 
> There’s no negative balance on any asset account.
> 
> Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four 
> sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to 
> $1000.
> 
> The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive 
> $1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which 
> are negative.
> 
> Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’
> 
> Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this:
> 
> Receipt of money with segregation:
> 
> Dr. Assets:Checking $500
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance   $150
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $ 50
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee  $ 50
> Cr. Income:Salary   $1000
> 
> When you go out for lunch I see this:
> 
> Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
> Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
> 
> How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you 
> describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? 
> What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be 
> ‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be 
> greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit 
> transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) 
> Debits don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives 
> you more to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always 
> (eventually) a credit to assets, never a debit.
> 
> I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch 
> looks like this:
> 
> Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
> Cr. $40
> 
> If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere 
> instead of just $20.
> 
> Note, doing this:
> 
> Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
> Cr. Expenses:Dining $20
> 
> Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving 
> a refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a 
> refund/reversing condition, not a normal expenditure.
> 
> When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, 
> split with the physical asset account for the for

RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

type if I was using a sub-account and didn’t spend from that sub 
account:
Dr Expenses:Dining $20
Cr Assets:MyCash $20
Cr Assets:Checking:Dining $20
Dr Assets:Checking $20

So if I (foolishly) chose a sub-account for allocation that I never spent from, 
doing it the separated way is no extra work – still similar four splits. But as 
you say, if you use a sub-account and spend from it most of the time, the messy 
four line transaction becomes a simple
Cr Checking:Dining $20
Dr Expenses:Dining $20

Does this make sense?

Thanks and regards,

Matt

From: Adrien Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 6:45 PM
To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

Matt,

You lost me again.

I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset.

You receive a paycheck, say $1000.

You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts.

You still have $1000.

There’s no negative balance on any asset account.

Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four 
sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to $1000.

The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive 
$1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which are 
negative.

Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’

Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this:

Receipt of money with segregation:

Dr. Assets:Checking $500
Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250
Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance   $150
Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $ 50
Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee  $ 50
Cr. Income:Salary   $1000

When you go out for lunch I see this:

Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20

How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you 
describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? 
What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be 
‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be 
greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit 
transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) Debits 
don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives you more 
to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always (eventually) a 
credit to assets, never a debit.

I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch looks 
like this:

Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
Cr. $40

If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere instead 
of just $20.

Note, doing this:

Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
Cr. Expenses:Dining $20

Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving a 
refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a refund/reversing 
condition, not a normal expenditure.

When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, 
split with the physical asset account for the form you received the payment in. 
Generally, this will be a credit to ‘income’ and a debit to ‘cash.’ Where and 
how do you record the receipt of money as a credit to an asset instead and how 
does that balance against your credit to your income account?

i.e.—

Dr. $1000
Cr. Income:Salary   $1000
Cr. Assets:??

Regards,
Adrien


> On Jan 29, 2018, at 11:25 PM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than 
> "template transactions".
>
> I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to 
> automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented 
> spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset 
> acct (increase = make it less negative).
>
> For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I 
> would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the 
> allocation to zero.
>
> So when I enter:
>
> Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150
> Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150
>
> I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits
>
> Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150
> Dr account showing allocated cash 1150.
>
> I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that 
> transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero.
>
> For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change 
> it - underspendi

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

Matt,

You lost me again.

I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset.

You receive a paycheck, say $1000.

You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts.

You still have $1000.

There’s no negative balance on any asset account.

Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four 
sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to $1000.

The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive 
$1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which are 
negative.

Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’

Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this:

Receipt of money with segregation:

Dr. Assets:Checking $500
Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250
Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance   $150
Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $ 50
Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee  $ 50
Cr. Income:Salary   $1000

When you go out for lunch I see this:

Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20

How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you 
describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? 
What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be 
‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be 
greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit 
transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) Debits 
don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives you more 
to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always (eventually) a 
credit to assets, never a debit.

I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch looks 
like this:

Dr. Expenses:Dining $20
Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
Cr. $40

If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere instead 
of just $20.

Note, doing this:

Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining  $20
Cr. Expenses:Dining $20

Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving a 
refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a refund/reversing 
condition, not a normal expenditure.

When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, 
split with the physical asset account for the form you received the payment in. 
Generally, this will be a credit to ‘income’ and a debit to ‘cash.’ Where and 
how do you record the receipt of money as a credit to an asset instead and how 
does that balance against your credit to your income account?

i.e.—

Dr. $1000
Cr. Income:Salary   $1000
Cr. Assets:??

Regards,
Adrien


> On Jan 29, 2018, at 11:25 PM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than 
> "template transactions".
> 
> I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to 
> automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented 
> spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset 
> acct (increase = make it less negative).
> 
> For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I 
> would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the 
> allocation to zero.
> 
> So when I enter:
> 
> Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150
> Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150
> 
> I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits
> 
> Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150
> Dr account showing allocated cash 1150.
> 
> I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that 
> transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero.
> 
> For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change 
> it - underspending means the money is available for later.
> 
> Am I understanding you right?
> 
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Matt
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Mike or Penny Novack <stepbystepf...@dialup4less.com>
> Date: 30/1/18 09:31 (GMT+10:00)
> To: Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com>
> Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
> 
> On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
>  When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded 
> on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really 
> using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES 
> your cash available. .

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than 
"template transactions".

I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to 
automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented 
spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset acct 
(increase = make it less negative).

For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I 
would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the allocation 
to zero.

So when I enter:

Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150
Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150

I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits

Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150
Dr account showing allocated cash 1150.

I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that 
transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero.

For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change 
it - underspending means the money is available for later.

Am I understanding you right?


Thanks and regards,
Matt


 Original message 
From: Mike or Penny Novack <stepbystepf...@dialup4less.com>
Date: 30/1/18 09:31 (GMT+10:00)
To: Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com>
Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
 When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded 
on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really 
using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your 
cash available. ...
Yes, the problem precisely, we aren't assigning the same meaning to "available" 
and "liability"

But your example of what you would like to see:

Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it 
doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are 
implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too 
onerous.

In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, 
its easy:
Dr Exp whatever account
Cr Cash I pay for something awesome
Dr Parent account the amount I paid
Cr sub-account the amount I paid

SPECIAL CASE of a GENERAL requirement. The special case might be easy to 
implement BUT in general the amounts are NOT going to be the same.

This is actually a fairly common situation for me, say one of the organizations 
SELLS a tee shirt (fundraising, but tee shirts might also be being given away 
to volunteers).
Db   Cash
Cr   Sales
Db   Cost of goods sold
Cr   Tee shirt inventory
<< the shirts might be being sold for $20 but cost the organization $7 >>

Or, and though this is common with our restricted funds (not exactly matching) 
I will give an example precisely for your situation. You socked away into this 
reserve $100/mo toward the annual renewal of your car insurance based on your 
ESTIMATE of what that annual bill will be. But when the bill arrives it is for 
$1150 or $1250. In both cases you pay the bill and release the restriction, 
yes? << in one case, you had more in the fund than needed but it still can be 
released to general purposes, in the other you used all of the fund AND had to 
add some general funds >>

Michael D Novack



___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Mike or Penny Novack]

On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
 When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I 
concluded on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for 
future) is really using a separate asset account. After all - creating 
a liability INCREASES your cash available. ...
Yes, the problem precisely, we aren't assigning the same meaning to 
"available" and "liability"


But your example of what you would like to see:

Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it 
doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are implementation 
difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too onerous.

In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, 
its easy:
Dr Exp whatever account
Cr Cash I pay for something awesome
Dr Parent account the amount I paid
Cr sub-account the amount I paid

SPECIAL CASE of a GENERAL requirement. The special case might be easy to 
implement BUT in general the amounts are NOT going to be the same.

This is actually a fairly common situation for me, say one of the organizations 
SELLS a tee shirt (fundraising, but tee shirts might also be being given away 
to volunteers).
Db   Cash
Cr   Sales
Db   Cost of goods sold
Cr   Tee shirt inventory
<< the shirts might be being sold for $20 but cost the organization $7 >>

Or, and though this is common with our restricted funds (not exactly matching) I will give 
an example precisely for your situation. You socked away into this reserve $100/mo toward 
the annual renewal of your car insurance based on your ESTIMATE of what that annual bill 
will be. But when the bill arrives it is for $1150 or $1250. In both cases you pay the bill 
and release the restriction, yes? << in one case, you had more in the fund than 
needed but it still can be released to general purposes, in the other you used all of the 
fund AND had to add some general funds >>

Michael D Novack


___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

I’m not sure I’d say ‘whatever’ the users request, certainly any software is a 
product of the developers and such things are their choice. Being open source 
as GnuCash is, if you find fundamental disagreement on that point, you can 
fork. But I’ve found the GnuCash developers to be very amenable to change (they 
have lots in the works themselves) but their resources are very limited and 
outside of squashing bugs their priority right now is behind the scenes stuff. 
The reason for that is once they get the code modernized and structured the way 
they need it, they’ll be able to open up much more possibility for new features 
and reporting.

The reason I used the term ‘template’ was that the already existing ‘scheduled’ 
transactions are already ‘triggered.’ It’s just that they trigger on a date, 
not an event like adding a particular kind of transaction or in a particular 
account. Scheduled transactions already use templates and those are saved. It’s 
the ‘fire on demand’ rather than ‘fire on a schedule’ functionality I think 
will be needed to better implement the savings mechanisms we’re discussing.

And yes, one can always spend funds at any time out of an account those funds 
don’t reside in, but as you see, that either requires at least two extra 
splits, or a separate transfer transaction prior to the expense transaction. 
Avoiding doing so not only keeps the visual clutter down and confusion to a 
minimum but also is part of enforcing the savings plan in the first place.

Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Agree with your other email! A program should entertain whatever users are 
> requesting for better functionality. Of course, open source volunteer 
> developers can't be expected to drop everything to implement "my awesome 
> idea". Hence why I'm going to try to contibute (sigh, always need more time).
> 
> Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but 
> it doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are 
> implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be 
> too onerous.
> 
> In terms of spending from another account but recording against a 
> sub-account, its easy:
> Dr Exp whatever account
> Cr Cash I pay for something awesome
> Dr Parent account the amount I paid
> Cr sub-account the amount I paid
> 
> This is (like all of our segregating money transactions) a virtual one, but 
> it wont affect your reconciling (because as discussed previously we are 
> reconciling by the parent and including sub-accounts).
> Hmmm now that I re-read your email, I think you might have meant this 
> already. Sorry!
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Matt
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>> 
> Date: 28/1/18 15:33 (GMT+10:00) 
> To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org 
> <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>> 
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] 
> 
> You can already use formulas in scheduled transactions, I just don’t think 
> you can use a present GC register value as a variable. (such as x% of the 
> balance of Assets:Checking) I could be wrong. It should be possible though to 
> use the value of one split as a variable so some auto-allocation might be 
> possible.
> 
> There’s also the issue with triggering the transaction based on an event 
> other than a date stamp. (such as triggering after you post a credit to 
> income or a debit to an checking account)
> 
> What we really need there isn’t so much a Scheduled Transaction but a 
> Template Transaction. (that can retain formulas)
> 
> As for keeping accounts straight, if someone in the real world wants to spend 
> money from a savings account by writing a check on their checking account - 
> that’s physically impossible. (barring auto adjusting as overdraft 
> protection) I don’t see why GnuCash should be any different. Trying to make 
> that possible I think would lead to all sorts of confusion as to where money 
> came from or where it should be. To help reduce the tendency to do so, I 
> suggested splitting up the sub-accounts based on where you are most likely to 
> draw funds from for those particular purposes. Otherwise, you’d have to do a 
> transfer from say ‘Savings’ to ‘Checking’ in GnuCash first just like you 
> would in the real world. But if you’re in the habit of spending from any ole’ 
> source for any ole’ purpose then by all means, keep the sub-accounts 
> separate, you’ll just have to include the transfer split in the expense 
> transaction or else do a separate transfer transaction.
> 
> Regards,
> Adrien
&

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

Matt,

What Mike was talking about with Liabilities was with respect to ‘reserve’ or 
‘restricted’ funds. In the case of non-profits taking donations that can be 
earmarked
those funds have to be legally separated and cannot be used for any desired 
purpose.

As well, ‘deposits’ which are pre-payments set aside for particular purpose 
can’t be thrown into a general funds pool. (you might have to refund them if 
you don’t deliver the requested goods or services)

But both of those cases are real life liabilities.

The funds don’t ‘belong’ to whomever received them unless and until they are 
used for the appropriate purpose.

While what we are discussing is somewhat similar in concept, in real life, 
there is no actual liability incurred by not wanting to spend all you have and 
not save for vacation or the occasional night on the town, so using that type 
of account, while mathematically possible, isn’t necessarily the best idea to 
model what’s going on in the real world.

Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:11 PM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> :-) you missed one of the previous posts. Using Liability accounts that way 
> is adding anoter "layer" of accounting to your system. When you look at what 
> liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this 
> situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset 
> account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. 
> However, shifting it to another asset account (either sub-account or 
> completely different area) reduces cash available AND allows you to record 
> the increasing amount you have segmented. If I get a chance, I think I'll 
> type all this up with some examples (it is easier to show with exampes).
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Matt
>  Original message 
> From: Mike or Penny Novack <stepbystepf...@dialup4less.com>
> Date: 29/1/18 00:51 (GMT+10:00)
> To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
> 
> On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
>> Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the 
>> process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really 
>> a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash 
>> is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts 
>> in the recociliation window.
> Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in
> different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal
> (organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business)
> though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds
> << might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >>
> 
> ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for
> amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve
> funds" <<  I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are
> common >>
> 
> Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier
> described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from
> writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted
> portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you
> are doing it.
> 
> Michael D Novack
> 
> 
> ___
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-user=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577=2IRNnuUZ4u9Vu%2FEryYTBw6QSBfRJOx8OV0%2FBBYbZn%2BM%3D=0
> If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.gnucash.org%2Fwiki%2FMailing_Lists=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577=sveoJ58ma1r3tnK4q1zqT5IuppYFxRlvmnJQrOj7g8E%3D=0
>  for more information.
> -
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
> ___
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
> -
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-Li

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

Agree with your other email! A program should entertain whatever users are 
requesting for better functionality. Of course, open source volunteer 
developers can't be expected to drop everything to implement "my awesome idea". 
Hence why I'm going to try to contibute (sigh, always need more time).

Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it 
doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are 
implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too 
onerous.

In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, 
its easy:
Dr Exp whatever account
Cr Cash I pay for something awesome
Dr Parent account the amount I paid
Cr sub-account the amount I paid

This is (like all of our segregating money transactions) a virtual one, but it 
wont affect your reconciling (because as discussed previously we are 
reconciling by the parent and including sub-accounts).
Hmmm now that I re-read your email, I think you might have meant this 
already. Sorry!

Thanks and regards,
Matt


 Original message 
From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
Date: 28/1/18 15:33 (GMT+10:00)
To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

You can already use formulas in scheduled transactions, I just don’t think you 
can use a present GC register value as a variable. (such as x% of the balance 
of Assets:Checking) I could be wrong. It should be possible though to use the 
value of one split as a variable so some auto-allocation might be possible.

There’s also the issue with triggering the transaction based on an event other 
than a date stamp. (such as triggering after you post a credit to income or a 
debit to an checking account)

What we really need there isn’t so much a Scheduled Transaction but a Template 
Transaction. (that can retain formulas)

As for keeping accounts straight, if someone in the real world wants to spend 
money from a savings account by writing a check on their checking account - 
that’s physically impossible. (barring auto adjusting as overdraft protection) 
I don’t see why GnuCash should be any different. Trying to make that possible I 
think would lead to all sorts of confusion as to where money came from or where 
it should be. To help reduce the tendency to do so, I suggested splitting up 
the sub-accounts based on where you are most likely to draw funds from for 
those particular purposes. Otherwise, you’d have to do a transfer from say 
‘Savings’ to ‘Checking’ in GnuCash first just like you would in the real world. 
But if you’re in the habit of spending from any ole’ source for any ole’ 
purpose then by all means, keep the sub-accounts separate, you’ll just have to 
include the transfer split in the expense transaction or else do a separate 
transfer transaction.

Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process 
> we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case 
> of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is 
> already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in 
> the recociliation window.
>
> I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to 
> contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty 
> complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings 
> acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common 
> thing that people want out of Gnucash.
>
> After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes 
> that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of 
> "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where 
> simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other 
> accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next 
> big discussion with you all!
>
> Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time,
> Matt
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>>
> Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00)
> To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>>
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
>
> That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks!
>
>
> Regards,
> Adrien
>
> > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.truss...@gmail.com 
> > <mailto:tommy.truss...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split 

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

:-) you missed one of the previous posts. Using Liability accounts that way is 
adding anoter "layer" of accounting to your system. When you look at what 
liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this 
situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset 
account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. 
However, shifting it to another asset account (either sub-account or completely 
different area) reduces cash available AND allows you to record the increasing 
amount you have segmented. If I get a chance, I think I'll type all this up 
with some examples (it is easier to show with exampes).

Thanks and regards,
Matt
 Original message 
From: Mike or Penny Novack <stepbystepf...@dialup4less.com>
Date: 29/1/18 00:51 (GMT+10:00)
To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote:
> Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process 
> we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case 
> of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is 
> already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in 
> the recociliation window.
Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in
different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal
(organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business)
though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds
<< might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >>

ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for
amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve
funds" <<  I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are
common >>

Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier
described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from
writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted
portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you
are doing it.

Michael D Novack


___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-user=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577=2IRNnuUZ4u9Vu%2FEryYTBw6QSBfRJOx8OV0%2FBBYbZn%2BM%3D=0
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.gnucash.org%2Fwiki%2FMailing_Lists=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577=sveoJ58ma1r3tnK4q1zqT5IuppYFxRlvmnJQrOj7g8E%3D=0
 for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

ething is really a case 
> of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is 
> already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in 
> the recociliation window.
> 
> I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to 
> contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty 
> complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings 
> acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common 
> thing that people want out of Gnucash.
> 
> After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes 
> that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of 
> "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where 
> simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other 
> accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next 
> big discussion with you all!
> 
> Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time,
> Matt
> 
> 
> ---- Original message ----
> From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
> Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00)
> To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
> 
> That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Adrien
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.truss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment
>> into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and
>> this isn't quite germane to budgeting.
>> 
>> But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express
>> about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they
>> do take a little maintenance.
>> 
>> WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS
>> 
>> You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding
>> onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for
>> successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked
>> funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending
>> down the account more than you'd like.
>> 
>> (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!)
>> 
>> EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW
>> 
>> Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding
>> "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the
>> bookkeeper. ;-)
>> 
>> I have a checking account at BigBank.
>> 
>> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking
>> 
>> The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the
>> balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There
>> are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.)
>> 
>> SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account:
>> 
>> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance
>> 
>> Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the
>> account to its subaccount:
>> 
>> (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split
>> register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column
>> are "dr".)
>> 
>> 2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance   2500.00cr
>>   Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance   $2500.00dr
>>   Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking   $2500.00cr
>> 
>> When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this
>> transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the
>> Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance
>> information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement.
>> 
>> Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that
>> weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and
>> $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as
>> "cleared."
>> 
>> From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before --
>> 
>> o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the
>> BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually
>> have.
>> 
>> o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and
>> enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement.
>> 
>> o - When I reconcile the "Inclu

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Mike or Penny Novack]

On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote:

Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process 
we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of 
segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already 
happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the 
recociliation window.
Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in 
different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal 
(organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business) 
though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds 
<< might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >>


ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for 
amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve 
funds" <<  I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are 
common >>


Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier 
described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from 
writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted 
portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you 
are doing it.


Michael D Novack


___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see 
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[D via gnucash-user]

I'm glad you're going to look at documenting your suggestions in the Tutorial. 
I imagine they would fit as a special section in the budgets chapter.

As for the idea of having formulas active in the register, I think that there 
are a number of issues that need consideration and addressing.

First, when entering transactions, you already can enter numeric formulas 
(35/57), and Gnucash will calculate these. If I am entering transactions for 
real accounting events, then that is all I really need, it seems to me. 
Calculations with variables would only arise for future, tentative 
transactions. But entering future, tentative transactions goes counter to the 
idea that an accounting package tracks real transactions--using real 
money--rather than potential transactions. This has been where such discussions 
have foundered in the past on these lists. The scheduled transactions module 
attempts to finesse this by allowing formulas which are processed separately, 
and which create real transactions at specified points in time.

I imagine also that activating variable-based calculations into the register 
itself would require some serious reprogramming, and I do not know how likely 
that is to happen. I have read here that the register code is challenging to 
work with, and that an attempt to update the register has stalled.

Personally, I have come to believe that budgeting is fundamentally different 
from accounting, and keep them separate. I use a spreadsheet to track the few 
areas I choose to budget, and have a report in Gnucash that gives me usage 
numbers for those areas, which I transfer over manually. Gnucash's budget tools 
always hurt too much for my brain.

David

On January 28, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Matt Graham <matt_graham2...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process 
we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of 
segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already 
happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the 
recociliation window.

I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to contriubute 
to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty complicated (for 
beginners) when you segment the money in your savings acount, and then want to 
spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common thing that people want out 
of Gnucash.

After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes that 
would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of "formula" 
based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where simple 
equations can be used often based on the values present in other 
accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next big 
discussion with you all!

Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time,
Matt


 Original message 
From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00)
To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks!


Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.truss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment
> into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and
> this isn't quite germane to budgeting.
>
> But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express
> about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they
> do take a little maintenance.
>
> WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS
>
> You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding
> onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for
> successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked
> funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending
> down the account more than you'd like.
>
> (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!)
>
> EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW
>
> Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding
> "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the
> bookkeeper. ;-)
>
> I have a checking account at BigBank.
>
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking
>
> The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the
> balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There
> are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.)
>
> SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account:
>
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance
>
> Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/201

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Matt Graham]

Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process 
we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of 
segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already 
happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the 
recociliation window.

I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to contriubute 
to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty complicated (for 
beginners) when you segment the money in your savings acount, and then want to 
spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common thing that people want out 
of Gnucash.

After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes that 
would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of "formula" 
based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where simple 
equations can be used often based on the values present in other 
accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next big 
discussion with you all!

Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time,
Matt


 Original message 
From: Adrien Monteleone <adrien.montele...@gmail.com>
Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00)
To: GNU Cash User <gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks!


Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell <tommy.truss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment
> into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and
> this isn't quite germane to budgeting.
>
> But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express
> about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they
> do take a little maintenance.
>
> WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS
>
> You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding
> onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for
> successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked
> funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending
> down the account more than you'd like.
>
> (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!)
>
> EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW
>
> Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding
> "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the
> bookkeeper. ;-)
>
> I have a checking account at BigBank.
>
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking
>
> The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the
> balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There
> are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.)
>
> SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account:
>
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance
>
> Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the
> account to its subaccount:
>
> (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split
> register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column
> are "dr".)
>
>  2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance   2500.00cr
>Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance   $2500.00dr
>Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking   $2500.00cr
>
> When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this
> transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the
> Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance
> information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement.
>
> Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that
> weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and
> $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as
> "cleared."
>
> From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before --
>
> o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the
> BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually
> have.
>
> o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and
> enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement.
>
> o - When I reconcile the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox is ticked and it
> needs to stay ticked. (It seems to "remember" the setting from session to
> session, as you would hope.)
>
> o - I also notice when I'm reconciling that when I "jump" to a transaction
> by double-clicking on an item in the funds in / fu

Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]

[Adrien Monteleone]

That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks!


Regards,
Adrien

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell  wrote:
> 
> I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment
> into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and
> this isn't quite germane to budgeting.
> 
> But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express
> about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they
> do take a little maintenance.
> 
> WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS
> 
> You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding
> onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for
> successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked
> funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending
> down the account more than you'd like.
> 
> (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!)
> 
> EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW
> 
> Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding
> "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the
> bookkeeper. ;-)
> 
> I have a checking account at BigBank.
> 
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking
> 
> The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the
> balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There
> are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.)
> 
> SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account:
> 
> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance
> 
> Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the
> account to its subaccount:
> 
> (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split
> register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column
> are "dr".)
> 
>  2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance   2500.00cr
>Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance   $2500.00dr
>Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking   $2500.00cr
> 
> When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this
> transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the
> Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance
> information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement.
> 
> Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that
> weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and
> $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as
> "cleared."
> 
> From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before --
> 
> o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the
> BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually
> have.
> 
> o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and
> enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement.
> 
> o - When I reconcile the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox is ticked and it
> needs to stay ticked. (It seems to "remember" the setting from session to
> session, as you would hope.)
> 
> o - I also notice when I'm reconciling that when I "jump" to a transaction
> by double-clicking on an item in the funds in / funds out lists, the
> transaction opens into a different kind of "general ledger" style register
> that includes ALL transactions in the account and subaccounts. It exactly
> resembles the kind of register that appears when you search for
> transactions. It has a "plus" (+) mark in its tab and looks different from
> the "ordinary" register.
> 
> 
> Obviously at any time I can "overspend" and the primary account balance
> will go negative, with either dire or negligible real-world repercussions.
> But if I ignore the red (negative) balance numbers and keep the balances in
> the red, I've eliminated the reason for having the subaccount in the first
> place.
> 
> I can raise or lower the minumum balance at any time by creating another
> transaction between the account and subaccount.
> 
> 
> -
>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>> 
> ___
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user@gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.

___
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
-
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.