YNAB You Need A Budget

[arnieman21]

I have been using Pro for about a month now and I've started messing around with 3.

Below I have written how I think the buffer is kept track in both software, please let me know if I am doing it wrong or right.
In Pro I created a Buffer category to keep track of my buffer. In 3 you don't have to create a buffer and whatever I don't budget is automatically placed in a buffer.

Thanks for the read!

[lautzu]

Correct!

[arnieman21]

Sweet thanks!

[arnieman21]

I know this question has been answered but I keep thinking about this.

I might be missing something which is usually the case but I thought the YNAB method is to have a zero balance budget where every dollar has a job? To me YNAB 3 doesn't support this zero balance budget idea. If I finish filling in the categories in my budget and I have some money left over the value up top would not turn 0.

Am I looking at this or thinking about it the way I should be? Any suggestions? I know I can make a buffer category but I don't think thats what the software is designed to do. I've been getting by but somehow I feel like I am not following the spirit of the methodology properly.

[Mudie]

Technically you're correct, you should be budgeting to zero and as you said, giving every dollar a job. However, thanks to the roll forward effect of everything in YNAB 3 you can of course let a small amount of money ride in essence being given the 'Job' of waiting to go to work.

In other words, even though you may not have assigned a small amount if money to a specific category it still has a task to do if only a virtual one - growing into a FULL Buffer!

[blarg]

And of course if you want to budget down to 0 with YNAB 3, create a budget category and do so. There's nothing wrong with doing it that way either if you think you'd be tempted by seeing X hundred/thousand available to budget at the top. Then at the end, just negative budget it back out of that category and it'll go into available. You just have the option of doing it either way now.

[arnieman21]

Thanks guys!

I'm still not sure how I would do this. I'm one of those people who would over think something when there is an easy solution out there. I've been using YNAB 3 for about 3 months now and what I've been doing is making sure the total budgeted dollars is lower by couple of hundred dollars than what my wife and I earn for the month then let the rest roll on to the next or budget exactly for what we earn for the month. (Yeah I'm guilty of budgeting without having the dollars available but it's working for me!) But I got into re-reading the rules and the 0 based budget got me thinking i've been doing it wrong.

I think I'll keep doing it that way I've been doing it because it's been working so far, I'm to lazy to create a budget and negatively add it back into the income available, and right now my mind is over thinking the problem and possible solution.

[malisab]

... and right now my mind is over thinking the problem and possible solution.

There are lots of us here that totally get that. Paralysis by analysis is my middle name.

[chrish]

I think I'll keep doing it that way I've been doing it because it's been working so far, I'm to lazy to create a budget and negatively add it back into the income available

Creating a category called buffer, and budgeting money to it once each month instead of leaving to roll forward, then once you have your buffer full, budgeting once more (a negative amount) to make it available would take less time than writing the post you just made.

[arnieman21]

That's a good point but when you add up the total amount of time that I would have to perform the same task monthly over the course of time I would be using YNAB then that point becomes invalid.

[blarg]

Just do what's working for you already mate. No worries.

There are heaps of ways to do almost everything we do in YNAB. Do what makes sense and works for you. The tutorials even show building the buffer the way you're doing it.