gj0608 said: Seems like a simple fix to me - add sub-account capabilities to accounts like they do for categories. A no-brainer. Hardly believe adding that capability is akin to constructing a 10 storey building on a single home lot.
gj0608 said: Again, it is another item that should be a quick fix. Just because they haven't done it doesn't necessarily mean it is because it is difficult for Quicken to do....sometimes, software providers do not take valuable input from its customer base - it is a simple as that.
gj0608 said: Chris, If adding sub-accounts to accounts is indeed extremely difficult to do (as surprising as that may be for me, I will take your word), then the initial design set up was flawed, to begin with Quicken.
gj0608 said: Let's ask some accountants if this would be neat to have" If they did, the software developers would have asked users who would be well versed in this area and would have enlightened them on the importance of having such a feature.
gj0608 said: NotACPA,I fail to understand how the creators of the program designed a sub-account feature for income and expenses but didn't consider it for assets and liabilities.
gj0608 said: Chris, Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm going to accept your explanation as to why the implementation of sub-accounts for the balance sheet accounts cannot be done in its current software setup. However, the fact remains the software should have been constructed and designed initially to do so. The addition of subaccounts in no way should add confusion to non-accountants. To the layman using Quicken, they are doing accounting (or bookkeeping) without even knowing it. If they can understand the use of sub-accounts for income and expense accounts, they surely could understand it from a balance sheet perspective. Again, I find this is a flaw in the program design that the original programmers should have implemented.
gj0608 said: Tom, Thank you for the explanation - this was helpful. Just realized I also can do I search within my Miscellaneous Receivables by payee name to get the same info.
gj0608 said: Tom, Maybe this is for another thread but I never did understand the use of tags. It doesn't sit well with me when I can accomplish the same thing by some other method - such as payee in the above example. I guess the bigger question is: what's the benefit of using tags?