Financier Forums

Hi Alex,

Long time listener first time requestor... ;)

I'm a little bit of an odd nut (or not that odd) in that I do have a "savings account" aligned with a major category.  I love being able to compare and reconcile that section of the budget-- and it keeps me aligned with pushing more money from the checking account to the savings account.  The sum of all categories in the master allows me to review against the savings account. 

With this usage, it limits me in having a subset of categories I'd like to see the sum or break out on.  For instance, I have a "Wedding" category but it's a major category vs. break out for venue, photographer, tux, rehearsal dinner, etc. 

How difficult would it be to have a second tier of sub categories within a major category as a feature request?

It's a nice to have and won't break my interest if it doesn't happen.


Category -->  Savings  (total of all sub categories)
Sub --->              ----  Wedding  (total of all sub sub categories)
Sub Sub-->                 -----   Venue
Sub Sub-->                 -----    tux
.
.
.
etc.

What level would you budget to?

Quote from: Joel on October 28, 2016, 09:00:24 AM
What level would you budget to?

I'd budget the general and the breakout--- the hierarchy lets a subtotal be seen. If you have a different suggestion on the break out vs. how to see subtotals, that would be effective too.

One issue that always seems to crop up with this time of suggestion is that the level that you budget to needs to be the same. I don't necessarily have a suggestion how to solve that, but was just wondering if you wanted to budget to the lowest level or if you wanted to budget to the second lowest level and use the third level as some type of tracking.

Quote from: Joel on October 28, 2016, 09:18:24 AM
One issue that always seems to crop up with this time of suggestion is that the level that you budget to needs to be the same. I don't necessarily have a suggestion how to solve that, but was just wondering if you wanted to budget to the lowest level or if you wanted to budget to the second lowest level and use the third level as some type of tracking.

Nah, I'd budget at the lowest level and review the subtotal at the next level up.  If the sum at the next level up doesn't seem right it is to adjust the sub levels.  It is the same--- you cannot budget a major category-- you have to budget (assign jobs) to the ones under the major.

Said another way then, this doesn't change the what category level you budget at, but rather allows you to add an optional grouping of master categories together.

Current Setup:

--Master Category 1
---- Category 1
---- Category 2

-- Master Category 2
---- Category 3
---- Category 4


Proposed Setup:

Summary group:
-- Master Category 1
---- Category 1
---- Category 2
-- Master Category 2
---- Category 3
---- Category 4

To use an analogy, I wonder what a "file/folder" structure would look like. Category groups are the folders, categories are the files. You can nest the category groups and categories to a few levels deep. Maybe a maximum could be applied. Transactions can only be assigned to the categories, and the category groups give a sum of all the categories underneath it.

That's a lot of words, so here's a picture. Category groups are bold.

Bills ($1000)
-- Vehicle ($750)
---- Car A ($200)
---- Car B ($550)
-- Household ($250)
---- Phone ($150)
------ His Phone ($75)
------ Her Phone ($75)
---- TV ($75)
---- Internet ($25)

Quote from: asromzek on October 28, 2016, 10:55:18 AM
To use an analogy, I wonder what a "file/folder" structure would look like. Category groups are the folders, categories are the files. You can nest the category groups and categories to a few levels deep. Maybe a maximum could be applied. Transactions can only be assigned to the categories, and the category groups give a sum of all the categories underneath it.

That's a lot of words, so here's a picture.

Bills ($1000)
-- Vehicle ($750)
---- Car A ($200)
---- Car B ($550)
-- Household ($250)
---- Phone ($150)
------ His Phone ($75)
------ Her Phone ($75)
---- TV ($75)
---- Internet ($25)

This is what I was thinking they were talking about

Essentially yes!   parrot

That suggestion makes sense to me, so long as the Category level is always the level you budget at. I'm not sure the technical feasiblity of adding an option level that groups master categories. But I like the possibility. I like the file and folder terminology. That makes sense to me.


I was concerned you wanted a level of tracking underneath the category level that you budget at. And that's where (in my opinion), it becomes too complicated to have a solution that really makes sense.

Quote from: Bruce on October 28, 2016, 10:58:00 AM

Quote from: asromzek on October 28, 2016, 10:55:18 AM
To use an analogy, I wonder what a "file/folder" structure would look like. Category groups are the folders, categories are the files. You can nest the category groups and categories to a few levels deep. Maybe a maximum could be applied. Transactions can only be assigned to the categories, and the category groups give a sum of all the categories underneath it.

That's a lot of words, so here's a picture.

Bills ($1000)
-- Vehicle ($750)
---- Car A ($200)
---- Car B ($550)
-- Household ($250)
---- Phone ($150)
------ His Phone ($75)
------ Her Phone ($75)
---- TV ($75)
---- Internet ($25)

This is what I was thinking they were talking about

I think two levels should be enough. I personally can't envision needing any more than that. If so, it may be best to rethink your budget and create temporary master categories and hide them when your done.

But, I like the idea. I could definitely use it. That is if it can be done.

Alright, @Alex. We need this by Monday.

Quote from: asromzek on October 28, 2016, 11:17:16 AM
Alright, @Alex. We need this by Monday.

;D  ;D ;D

(But seriously, Tuesday at the latest!). Lol

Quote from: jeremiahsvow on October 28, 2016, 11:25:42 AM

Quote from: asromzek on October 28, 2016, 11:17:16 AM
Alright, @Alex. We need this by Monday.

;D  ;D ;D

(But seriously, Tuesday at the latest!). Lol

We're going to owe @Alex at least one beer when this all said and done.  8)

Quote from: Bruce on October 28, 2016, 11:27:33 AM

Quote from: jeremiahsvow on October 28, 2016, 11:25:42 AM

Quote from: asromzek on October 28, 2016, 11:17:16 AM
Alright, @Alex. We need this by Monday.

;D ;D ;D

(But seriously, Tuesday at the latest!). Lol

We're going to owe @Alex at least one beer when this all said and done.  8)

I'll pick up the first barrel.  parrot

This is a fun group....

I'm skeptical of this feature. It means well, but I feel like it make introduce more complexity and confusion to newer users than it would solve for experienced users.

I want to avoid feature bloat as much as possible. :)

Quote from: Alex on October 28, 2016, 12:28:23 PM
I'm skeptical of this feature. It means well, but I feel like it make introduce more complexity and confusion to newer users than it would solve for experienced users.

I want to avoid feature bloat as much as possible. :)

Understood... maybe there could be "advanced mode"?   8)

"Someday over the rainbow." 🌈 ;)