Dick
Sun Oct 31 17:32:36 CST 2004
I have no recent Quicken experience with which to judge how they'd handle a
case like this. Based on all of the reports and what little I have played
with various versions of Quicken over the years (when a new one has come
bundled on a machine I've been playing with primarily) I don't think it's a
better overall product than Money through 2004. My negative reaction to M05
is documented at
http://umpmfaq.info/Money2005.htm. I can't say if Quicken
2005 is going in a better direction, but I despise the direction Money
appears to be going in.
One other issue I should point out for the archives and for the sake of the
rant: if you are trying to use the technique I described for a case where
the deltas add up to a "negative" paycheck, Money02 through 05 will not
allow is. It insists a scheduled paycheck must be positive, even though you
can enter a negative one in the register with no such restriction. Examples
of why I wanted to schedule two negative paychecks for next year: my
benefits costs increase the first of next year--some before tax, some after.
To forecast the net cash flow impact, I wanted to schedule one of these
"delta" transactions. My wife is going to increase her 401k contribution to
max out the new allowance for 2005. This has tax impacts. To forecast the
net cash flow impact, I wanted to schedule one of these "delta"
transactions. In both cases, Money was smarter than me and refused to
cooperate. It said that a negative paycheck was "invalid". Invalid, my eye.
And it's not invalid if you enter it in the register, either. The
workaround? Tell it to leave unassigned the difference between the negative
total of the splits an the positive value of the paycheck that it insists
on. Then schedule a bill for twice the "delta" amount with no category. Cash
flow will work out. When you get to the point where you can edit the real
series to account for these things, you delete both of these "wedge"
transactions.
Wish list item: Every transaction that can be entered need to be able to be
scheduled. It's inexcusable that this is still not the case.
"Lawrence Smith" <LawrenceSmith97@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23mE4e85vEHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Dick,
>
> Sorry so late for my reply. Thank you for the information. I understand
> now.
>
> Do you know if Quicken resolves this issue? Do you think that they
> produce a better product in regard to this issue? I'lll switch if Quicken
> is a better product overall.
>
> Thank you again!
>
> - Lawrence