On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:Google:Federal >>> > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:Google:StateNY >>> > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:Google:CityNYC >>> >> I got the ordering of the last two components reversed here it should have read: > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:Federal:Google >>> > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:StateNY:Google >>> > Expenses:Taxes:US:TY2014:CityNYC:Google >> >> > >>> ... I don't see the advantage of putting your employer's name there. >>> If you really want that info, I'd just use a tag. Same for the tax >>> year. >>> >> >> Tags are less flexible, though I think this may be a difference between >> how Beancount and Ledger do reporting. >> > > (more...) > > Another thing I forgot to mention is that tags have proved to be awfully > easy to forget to insert. It's happened to me many times I've gone back in > a file and just noticed a missing tag for an old transaction. By having it > baked in the account name, it forces me to put it in the right place. > > The reason I want my employer name in this account name is to have a > counter that produces the same numbers as on my W2 at the end of the year, > thought it they were tagged, and I'd have an easy way to restrict > transactions to only those tagged by this account, I could produce the > number like that. I suppose it's similar... a tag applies to the entire > transaction, however; a component in an account name only applies to its > posting. In this case it would work out fine with tags IMO. > So I thought about this more and I've come around and I think I agree with you. This would be better solved with more powerful filtering, that would avoid having to create an explicit subaccount, at least in this case, the subaccounts do work but in this case they do look at bit excessive (the advantage is that from the income statements I have the breakdowns by default). I've had the same quandry about payees, sometimes I've been keeping separate payments - esp. when they're regular - with subaccounts, and it has been annoying me a bit, like Expenses:Internet:TimeWarner. This should just be a query like "account:Expenses:Internet and payee:TimeWarner". In the next iteration I'll define all my web views by a query expression instead of having fixed sets of dimensions... this will be nice, because the web interface will then support all its current views but for an arbitrary set of filters, and I should be able to provide any combination of the filters instead of creating links to all the combinations from the root page, It'll make it simpler and cleaner... if you want a specific subset of transactions that is not covered by the default links, you could type a query and create a new view on the fly. (OTOH you won't be able to just click your way through everything.) With this, I should be able to remove the subcategories and include out just those with that :Employer: component (by filtering on a component from the income account, e.g. component:Google) and that should provide the amounts to show on the W2 without having to resort to tags (that was my goal with those subaccounts, to get the expected W2 amounts for each source of revenue). -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
