I'm doing it at the leaf level rather than the root level. I think it depends on how you want to aggregate expenses. Do you care about aggregating expenses by person or by category? Personally speaking, I care more to know how much we spent on dining out in total rather than knowing how much my spouse spent across categories in total. For this reason, I do it at the leaf level (Expenses:Dining:Spouse) rather than root (Expenses:Spouse:Dining).
Ultimately, you can slice and dice however you want using queries, but this makes it easy for me to visualize category-level expenses in Fava. On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:30 AM 'Patrick Ruckstuhl' via Beancount < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm actually separating it at the root level. e.g. I have > > > Assets:Joint:US:Fidelity:Brokerage > Assets:Spouse1:US:Fidelity:HSA > Assets:Spouse2:US:Fidelity:HSA > > > I haven have income/expenses tracked that way > > Income:Joint:Food > Income:Spouse1:BankFees > Income:Spouse2:BankFees > > > That way I can with a simple prefix where statement limit it. > > > Regards, > > Patrick > On 31.05.2020 09:10, Jonathan Goldman wrote: > > I saw in the cookbook > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tss0IEzEyAPuKSGeNsfNgb0BfiW2ZHyP5nCFBW1uWlk/edit#> > document this mention of how to organize accounts: > > > Over time, I’ve iterated over many ways of defining my account names and I >> have converged to the following convention for Assets, Liabilities, and >> Income accounts: Type : Country : Institution : Account : SubAccount > > My question is what are recommendations for handling spouse accounts and > children. Specifically, if you have a spouse and kid and have IRAs or HSAs > what is the a good structure to follow? > Suppose these are the accounts you have: > Asset:US:Fidelity:Brokerage:...(joint) > Asset:US:Fidelity:HSA:Spouse1 > Asset:US:Fidelity:HSA:Spouse2 > Asset:US:Fidelity:IRA:Spouse1 > Asset:US:Fidelity:IRA:Spouse2 > Asset:US:Fidelity:529:Child1 > Asset:US:Fidelity:529:Child2 > Asset:US:Schwab:IRA:Spouse1 > Asset:US:Schwab:IRA:Spouse2 > I can imagine one kind of analysis is to aggregate by IRA and spouse but > maybe not include children and look across institutions. This is possible > with the right SQL query but just wondering if this structure is ok or if > there is a better/simpler structure when building accounts to track all > finances for a family. > thanks in advance! > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Beancount" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/396e3d7b-f9d0-4955-86a4-0498a2f5ca2f%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/396e3d7b-f9d0-4955-86a4-0498a2f5ca2f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Beancount" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/170a38cb-368c-0b83-458a-1ff7a470f3b6%40ch.tario.org > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/170a38cb-368c-0b83-458a-1ff7a470f3b6%40ch.tario.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAOHSxbm%2BR_3%2BtVXMHn2WUW40vFAskUyUfunyUYdzm-o%2BLDr6Xg%40mail.gmail.com.
