When child categories of expenses are created in the budget, the total of the parent category shall be the sum of all child categories under that parent. For example if utilities has 2 categories and it has given a total of 100 out of which 75 goes to water and 25 goes to power, in the parent it shall be shown as Household 100 (100). The first hundred is the budgeted expense assigned for household as whole and the second hundred is the sum of individual budgets of water and power. But if we add that in buddy, it is showing as 100 (200). Is this an error?
By the way if we spend more on water and power like 100 and 200, it can be shown as 100 (300). But this may be appearing as 100 (400). I did not check that any way.
Please explain this in the forum.. Thanks in advance.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Remember that you can set a value on any node - this is what appears as the unbracketed value. The bracketed number is the sum the node's value, plus that of all its decendents (its children nodes, and its children's children, etc). For instance, take a budget category 'Foo', with a value of $100. It has two children, 'Bar' and 'Baz', each with a value of $25. Bar, in turn, has a child, with a value of $50.
Thus, the value for Bar will show up as $25 ($75), since it has value 25, and the sum of it and all its children is 75. Foo will show the value $100 ($200), since it has its own value of $100, and the sum of it and all its decendents is $200 ($100 + $25 + $25 + $50).
The reason for this method is to show at a glance both the node's value, as well as everything beneath it. For instance, you could create an expense node "Household", underneath which are nodes "Utilities", "Furniture", etc. You could budget a separate amount in Household, for expenses which don't fit in any sub category.
Hope this makes sense.
Cheers
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Despite the age of this thread, I'd like to point out a flaw in consistency here.
Accounts are organized by "account types" while budget categories can be nested in the way olsonw described. From a practical point of view, wouldn't it make more sense to unify the nesting behaviour in favor of one of the methods?
My personal problem with the budget categories displayed as in 3.4.0.7 is that it lacks clarity with all the bracketed values. Also the colums get unnecessarily wide, even if you have no additional value for the parent node. It's at least 9 digits more for each!
You could budget a separate amount in Household, for expenses which don't fit in any sub category.
You could also create a budget category "miscellaneous ", if you really need it.
PS: Neat peace of software by the way. I also really like the string editor.
Greetings from Germany
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
When child categories of expenses are created in the budget, the total of the parent category shall be the sum of all child categories under that parent. For example if utilities has 2 categories and it has given a total of 100 out of which 75 goes to water and 25 goes to power, in the parent it shall be shown as Household 100 (100). The first hundred is the budgeted expense assigned for household as whole and the second hundred is the sum of individual budgets of water and power. But if we add that in buddy, it is showing as 100 (200). Is this an error?
By the way if we spend more on water and power like 100 and 200, it can be shown as 100 (300). But this may be appearing as 100 (400). I did not check that any way.
Please explain this in the forum.. Thanks in advance.
Remember that you can set a value on any node - this is what appears as the unbracketed value. The bracketed number is the sum the node's value, plus that of all its decendents (its children nodes, and its children's children, etc). For instance, take a budget category 'Foo', with a value of $100. It has two children, 'Bar' and 'Baz', each with a value of $25. Bar, in turn, has a child, with a value of $50.
Thus, the value for Bar will show up as $25 ($75), since it has value 25, and the sum of it and all its children is 75. Foo will show the value $100 ($200), since it has its own value of $100, and the sum of it and all its decendents is $200 ($100 + $25 + $25 + $50).
The reason for this method is to show at a glance both the node's value, as well as everything beneath it. For instance, you could create an expense node "Household", underneath which are nodes "Utilities", "Furniture", etc. You could budget a separate amount in Household, for expenses which don't fit in any sub category.
Hope this makes sense.
Cheers
Despite the age of this thread, I'd like to point out a flaw in consistency here.
Accounts are organized by "account types" while budget categories can be nested in the way olsonw described. From a practical point of view, wouldn't it make more sense to unify the nesting behaviour in favor of one of the methods?
My personal problem with the budget categories displayed as in 3.4.0.7 is that it lacks clarity with all the bracketed values. Also the colums get unnecessarily wide, even if you have no additional value for the parent node. It's at least 9 digits more for each!
You could also create a budget category "miscellaneous ", if you really need it.
PS: Neat peace of software by the way. I also really like the string editor.
Greetings from Germany