Budgeting prototype

[Darin Willits]

On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 01:52, Stephen Cuppett wrote:
> While I have some minor issues with the screenshots shown, this definitely
> is a step in the right direction.  The workbench idea, or the concept of a
> separate "view" for budgetary purposes is essential.  One of the things that
> makes GNUCash essential is the simplistic "T-account" view provided by the
> actual accounts.  This has to remain and tampering with that in anything but
> the most trivial ways would be a mistake.  Additional features with either
> the corporation or the individual in mind must make use of extra views.
> 
> As for the concept of "categories".  This does not exist.  The actual data
> has accounts.  The budget should have accounts.  They do not have to be the
> same and an account in the budget could be a combination of one or more of
> the real accounts.  For the example regarding groceries.  Utilization of a
> correct accounting system would generate an Expense account "Grocery
> Expense".  On a fictitious budget, an expense account of "Food" may exist
> and become a combination of Grocery Expense and Dining Expense with both
> accounts' inflation going against the hypothetical expenditure for a given
> period of time.
> 

I would hesitate before calling budgeting entities accounts, but maybe
category is the wrong word as well.  An account is a well known concept
from the rest of gnucash, and using it in the budgeting engine as well
would probably only serve to confuse the user.  Especially since an
"item" (better term maybe?) in the budget can be linked to one or more
accounts.  Using the term "account" both places could get...
interesting. :)

> However, I would offer actual/plan comparisons as opposed to some sort of
> balance view in the workbench.  This overly confuses the matter as to what
> is a good or bad number to see in all instances.  Also, in the related

You may be right here.  I am still trying to figure out exactly what
information to show in the workbench.  It might be that we need multiple
"views" of the same information.  An actual/plan view, a basic budget
amount view, and some others yet to be defined.


> category view (related accounts by my definition), only accounts of the same
> type should be available and that should have to be specified (since you
> make the income/expense delineation in a later view this is necessary here).
> There are other issues, but those may or may not flesh themselves out.
> 

I was wondering about forcing a category (item?) to belong to just one
type of account (asset/liability/expense...) to ease reporting, but that
would preclude linking things like a Saving Goal, and an expense as I
tried to show in the Holiday category.  I don't know what is necessarily
right here... will have to think on this some more.

Cheers,

Darin