The double reporting thing still doesn't apply to me.

Even if you pay with credit cards, ultimately it comes out of your regular bank account to pay off.

To me, its easier to just focus on the single bank account, and obtain the latest .csv from the current week (Last Saturday to current Saturday), and treat the entire list as a list of negative value expenses, and positive income items to keep it super simple.

The simpler it is, the better for me, because I honestly hate doing finances, and only do them to make sure I'm ontop of everything as its the last thing I want to do on a given week.

Hope that helps give some background, since I don't want to appear to be difficult, but would rather just "keep it in a spreadsheet".

To kind of back it up just a slight bit, even the average Excel user would say the same exact thing, especially ones that try to avoid having to use Quicken or more complicated pieces of software (which I know, there DOES exist GNU Cash, etc).

But yeah, keep it simple, keep it Emacs, keep it Org Mode, and keep it fun :) No need for Ledger.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, at 2:04 PM, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> 
> On 2022-01-10, at 18:01, Samuel Banya <sbanya@fastmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The 'double reporting' idea might have been why I just flat out shook my head when I saw the one presentation on 'ledger' in Emacs on YouTube a while ago as its a bit too complicated and unnecessary for a layman.
> >
> > I just don't need that kind of over-thinking when it comes to my finances since I just need a spreadsheet that listed expenses, and to count totals. That's about it.
> 
> You may think it's overthinking... unless you encounter one of the many
> /real-world problems/ the double-accounting system was /designed/ to
> solve.
> 
> A classic example is when you buy something on day X (expense) but pay
> for it on day Y (cash outflow), and you want to be able to record both
> dates.
> 
> Or you have some irregular costs (like paying for a car insurance once
> a year) and you want to spread them more evenly over a longer period, so
> that your /cash outflow/ is recorded once a year, but the associated
> /cost/ is recorded every month.  (This may help tremendously with
> budgeting.)
> 
> Or you decide to transfer money between two bank accounts (both yours),
> but money going from account A arrives at account B after one day (or
> even later).
> 
> Or you buy something for someone and he pays you back a few days (or
> weeks, or months) later, or not at all (which may happen).
> 
> 
> As you might notice, the first two examples are situations when the
> /expense/ and /cash outflow/ are detached in time - something
> /extremely/ common in business, but also pretty common in personal
> finance.  You might say that you don't care - and I understand that -
> but it is actually very useful to track /both/ expenses (so that you
> know your cost of living etc.) and cash in- and outflows (so that you
> can reconcile your ledger with your cash/bank account etc., to ensure
> you didn't make any mistake).  (If you - like most people, I assume -
> barely have liquidity, tracking cash flows may become even more
> important.)  Also, the difference in time between income/expenses and
> cash flow may become /extremely/ important when calculating taxes.
> 
> The third example is also connected with things happening at different
> moments in time, though to be fair, if you're only interested in actual
> /expenses/, you probably wouldn't even want to record that.
> 
> The last example is similar to the third one - it's not an /expense/ per
> se, but again - tracking cash is useful, tracking your assets and
> liabilities (in that case, money you owe to other people and money other
> people owe to you) is /extremely/ useful, even just as an individual,
> and if that guy /doesn't/ pay you back (mind you, this may happen for
> /legitimate/ issues, like death), it can actually /become/ an expense.
> 
> Also, using accounting software makes things like calculating your net
> worth trivial.  And there are other issues which can quickly become
> pretty hairy when you try to wrap you head around them with a simple
> spreadsheet (like dealing with various currencies/stock/commodities with
> varying prices, for instance), but which have standard, well-known
> solutions in the world of accounting.
> 
> 
> Actually, I'd argue that learning the basics of accounting could help
> a /layman/ better manage their finances.  While the technicalities of
> bookkeeping are not relevant to that, the general ideas like cash flow,
> income and expenses, balance sheet, assets and liabilities, liquidity,
> compound interest etc. provide a very useful way of thinking about
> money.  Two examples.  A friend of mine (an economist) was asked to
> conduct a 45-minute class for high-schoolers about economics (and
> finance, I guess).  He decided that if these kids are to have any use of
> that class, he should gice them a few sentences - "anchors", I'd call
> them - which could be some kind of guidelines to use when navigating the
> world of economy (on a scale of a country as well as of a household) and
> finance.  One of these sentences was: "If I don't have enough cash to
> buy <blank>, it means I cannot afford it."  It's as simple as that - but
> it goes very much against the message you get from (among others) the
> banking system.  (And yes, there are "exceptions".  But you can learn
> about those later.)  The second example is actually my pet peeve - some
> people buy things and call them "investments", probably to (possibly
> unconsciously) justify these expenses.  Usually these expenses have
> /nothing/ to do with investments.  Buying a car is /not/ an investment
> unless you use it to earn money.  Buying a better tv is /not/ an
> investment.  Buying a house /can/ be an investment if it allows you to
> save on rent.  Simply put: an "investment" is an expense you make that
> will enable you to generate income (or at least cut costs) in the future
> (with reasonable certainty or at least reasonable probability - buying
> a lottery ticket is /not/ an investment).
> 
> 
> Anyway, if any of the above sounds like it might be useful for you, I'd
> strongly suggest learning the basics of double accounting.  It's neither
> very hard nor boring!
> 
> Best,
> mb
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > I will take a look at the other suggestions with specific Org Mode formulas, looked awesome, thanks.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, at 10:31 AM, Greg Minshall wrote:
> >> > I'm wondering if your opinion about Ledger isn't influenced by the fact
> >> > that it uses basic accounting principles, like the idea of double-entry
> >> > accounting.  For me, it's /very/ simple and intuitive, but I graduated
> >> > in economics many years ago and had a (basic, but still) course on
> >> > accounting.  If that is your problem, I'd suggest spending some time on
> >> > understanding that - even if you don't end up using Ledger but some
> >> > other software, you might find learning about accounting useful.  (Also,
> >> > it's fascinating.  No, really!  It's an extremely clever abstract
> >> > system with a real-life use-case.)
> >> 
> >> i agree that learning the principles of double-entry is worthwhile,
> >> actually interesting, and of a very interesting history!
> >> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marcin Borkowski
> http://mbork.pl
>