[GNC] Need help with a Savings account

[Adrien Monteleone]

> On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:18 PM, AC <gnucash at acarver.net> wrote:
> 
> On 2019-04-17 20:00, Adrien Monteleone wrote:
>> And I also agree that the GnuCash defaults of informal labels and Basic View are much simpler to comprehend.
>> 
>> However, once someone encounters a situation where they don’t understand ’transfer’ account or the nature of double-entry, problems arise.
>> 
>> They arise because by default, GnuCash is hiding the double-entry nature of the system from them. (something of a contra-selling point when comparing GC to proprietary systems that do the same thing, very strange it is the GC default)
> 
> How is it that using the "informal" labels (not the accounting labels)
> is hiding the double-entry process?  It's fairly formal in everyday use
> that people understand and flows from natural language pretty easily.  I
> "withdraw" money from my bank and use it to make a "payment" to my
> credit card.  I "charge" my card when I go buy gasoline which is an
> "expense". The double entry is there, it's not hidden at all.AC,

Use of informal labels isn’t the part that is hiding the double-entry aspect. Use of the Basic View (by default) is doing so.

Basic View only shows you one side of the transaction. (it assumes the other side, that is, the register you are in, mind you, I don’t think that assumption is unreasonable)

If you continue to use the informal labels, but show the actual splits, you’ll get the result in my previous reply - that is, splits with amounts in the charge column for a payment and splits with amounts in the payment column for charges. Technically, these splits are *not* either charges or payments, they are debits or credits.

‘Formal’ and ‘everyday use’ are not the same thing, certainly not in this case. (that should be self explanatory, but...)

Yes, you charge your card when you buy gasoline. Do you also make a payment on the card at the exact same time *as part of* that charge transaction in order for it to balance? No, you don’t.

But GnuCash makes it look like you do — a charge assigned to Liabilities:Credit Card and a balancing ‘payment’ assigned to Expenses:Gasoline - that is non-sensical, certainly to a newbie.

What you are really doing is crediting your Liabilities:Credit Card and debiting your Expenses:Gasoline accounts. THAT makes much more sense than what appears to be a ‘payment’ on the card assigned to Expenses:Gasoline. The same goes for making an actual payment on the card and seeing a ‘charge’ on the same card tied to your bank account.

Go ahead and click the ’split’ button or use Auto-Split Ledger, or Transaction Journal while still using the informal labels and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Can you honestly tell me it makes sense that each and every transaction on your credit card account has *both* payments and charges? Regardless of if that transaction was either a payment or charge? Please explain if you do.

The informal labels only have meaning in Basic View. Basic View hides the other split in every transaction. (sometimes, there are more than one) If you try to figure out what is going wrong when you mis-enter a transaction, GnuCash is not helpful, and quite confusing, with either it’s view or it’s labels. (as the defaults) And then, only the casual user who only involves one expense account per card swipe might avoid seeing the other splits. Buy groceries and bath towels at the same time from a big box retailer, see the splits with both charges and payments and hold the popcorn for the ensuing mind-mush.

> 
> All of my banks (three) don't even use formal labels for the statements.
> They all write "Deposits" and "Withdrawls" right at the top of the
> transaction logs.  The credit cards I have (six) all write "Charges" and
> "Payments" on the statements.

Your bank statements then, are not showing both entries, but only one side. Each of those line items has a debit and a credit in the bank’s books. (and you should have the opposite in your books)

Transactions are not single entry. (that is, *either* debit or credit, but always BOTH) The use of the Basic View leads one to believe they are, expanding the full view of the transaction shows they are not, and the informal labels in that context are simply not useful, if not detrimental, to understanding the transaction.

Mind you, I didn’t write any of this (or the previous reply) as a complaint, critique, or RFE. I’m just hashing out what I see as a problem. Maybe it is all in my head, or maybe it is real, but just not frequent enough to bother with...

I don’t have anything more I think I can add, unless someone isn’t understanding what I’m describing, in which case, I’ll endeavor take a different approach.


Regards,
Adrien