Michael Krewson

What is a 'Budget'? Do I really need one?

Recommended Posts

A Budget is a quantitative expression of a plan for a defined period of time.  It may include planned sales volumes and revenues, resource quantities, costs and expenses, assets, liabilities and cash flows. It expresses strategic plans of business units, organizations, activities or events in measurable terms.

A budget (derived from old French word bougette, purse)  is a quantified financial plan for a forthcoming accounting period.

A budget is an important concept in microeconomics, which uses a budget line to illustrate the trade-offs between two or more goods. In other terms, a budget is an organizational plan stated in monetary terms.

We  all  need  a  little  Budget...    you  too ! :)

Do you  know  *low  budgets*  movies ?  They're  making  with  few  money !  That  are  my  idea's  to  your  question.  I'm  sure,  you're  better  informed...

PS.  Money  has  NO  priority  by  JW....

Share this post

Link to post
Guest Sonita

Yo vivo con un presupuesto para los próximos meses. Me ayuda a dar prioridad a lo más importante y no gastar más de lo que debería. 


Share this post

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Sonita said:

Yo vivo con un presupuesto para los próximos meses. Me ayuda a dar prioridad a lo más importante y no gastar más de lo que debería. 


Una muy buena actitud y la solución! :)

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Welcome To Our Community

    The most intelligent people on planet Earth hang out on this forum. Be ready to have your points of view challenged and refined.

  • Similar Content

    • By Nicole
      We’ve all heard the real estate mantra: location, location, location. As far as price is concerned, where a house is located is typically more important than the actual features of the home. That’s why you can buy a sprawling six-bedroom, six-bath house for less than $250,000 in some markets and pay close to $1 million for a tiny one-bedroom condo in New York City.
      Beyond real estate values, location also affects the overall cost of living – what you pay not just for housing, but also for food, transportation, healthcare and other everyday expenses. Salaries, of course, play an important role: A smaller salary goes further in places with a lower cost of living, while a large salary might be barely enough to get by on in an expensive city. (See also: 5 U.S. Cities with High Paychecks and a Low Cost of Living).
      Top 25 Cities Where You Can Live Large on $70K a Year
      With this in mind, job-hunting site Glassdoor recently came up with a cost-of-living ratio – calculated by taking a city’s median base salary and dividing it by its median home value – to find cities in the U.S. where your pay will go the furthest. Here it is: a countdown of the top 25 cities where you can live like a king or queen on less than $70K a year, along with each city’s cost of living ratio (a higher ratio number is better), median base salary, median home value and number of open jobs.
      25. Raleigh, N.C.
      Cost-of-living ratio: 30%
      Median base salary: $62,000
      Median home value: $209,400
      Number of open jobs: 22,339
      24. Minneapolis-St. Paul
      Cost-of-living ratio: 30%
      Median base salary: $65,000
      Median home value: $219,400
      Number of open jobs: 64,026
      Read more: Top 25 Cities Where You Can Live Large on Less Than $70k | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010417/top-25-cities-where-you-can-live-large-less-70k.asp#ixzz4jbp6fMBh Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
    • By Nicole
      Unless you have aBlue Apron subscription, the idea of having regular, home-cooked meals is probably more nostalgic than realistic. It’s tough to get motivated to pack a lunch every day when you work across the street from Panera. But you may be surprised to learn just how much you’re spending on meals out, and how that’s influencing your health.
      From June 2014 to July 2015, the average American household spent about $6,887 on food, according to household data from the United States Department of Labor Consumer Expenditure Survey. Of that amount, they spent about $3,983 on food for eating-in and another $2,904 on dining out at restaurants and takeout joints. That means the typical household is spending a whopping 42% of its food budget in restaurants.
      Now compare that to stats from the 1972-1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey, when Americans were spending a total of $1,154 a year on food, but only $422 (or 37%) eating out.
      It’s no secret that as a nation we’re getting heavier. (According to CDC data from 1971 to 1974, the percentage of people who were obese was 14.5%, but data from 2011 to 2012 show that figure has risen to 35.3%.) The uptick in our restaurant meals probably isn’t helping. “When you eat fast food or at restaurants, there are deficits in the nutrition,” says David Just, PhD, a professor of behavioral economics at Cornell University. The portion sizes are large, and the ingredients aren’t always very healthy. “It’s a trade-off.”
      Speaking of portion sizes, they’ve also increased quite a bit since the 1970s: One famous 2003 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that between 1977 and 1996, soft drinks gained 49 calories; hamburgers, 97 calories; French fries, 68 calories; and Mexican dishes, 133 calories.
      Another reason cooking at home may helps us stay at a healthy weight is that it’s easier to choose nutritious foods in the grocery store than at a takeout place. A 2014 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that people who spend the most amount of time cooking and prepping their own meals consumed more fruit and vegetables than those who spend the least amount of time cooking.
      “Spending time on food preparation at home might be essential to healthier dietary habits among adults,” the study authors concluded.
      So how do we eat healthier when we’re constantly strapped for time? Anything that ups the convenience factor should help: For example, research published in 2015 from Cornell University suggested that keeping your countertop free of cereal and instead displaying better-for-you foods like fruit might influence you to snack smarter.
      As for occasions when you have to (or want to) eat out? Dr. Just says that it’s best to choose what you’re going to eat before you order, he says. It’s a lot easier to make a smart choice when you’re not staring at a menu full of temptations.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sostar :  Do you need passport to go to another country?   Do you need identification from your country to show where you come from?  This is worldly or secular stuff I was referring to. You cannot go out from this world - you need to comply with the law.  You need to register a business. When you have people working for you - you need order and you need finance to support them... to buy food and pay electricity...for them. This is things I am talking about.  I did not mean that we must be worldly in our personality.... so I think you were misunderstanding me.  
    • Thank you for bringing out that point. However, in some parts of USA that salient point will be completely ignored.
    • These extreme answers are not spoken from wisdom but self-interest.
    • Obviously you have never seen a real stoning!   Not associating with someone cannot be compared to stoning - it is comparing a rock with a banana. 
    • Pure guesswork follows, I admit, but it is educated guesswork. It could be wrong. But it could well be right, seeing that the reporter has shown herself either partial or inept. Any decent lawyer will raise objections at any trial. Some are sustained. Some are over-ruled. When overruled, the judge will say why, which invariably can be taken as a slap at that lawyer. A biased reporter, if she was one, could report that as the judge's 'exasperation' or sharp rebuke - implying that the lawyer really pushed her buttons, whereas in fact such retorts are routine.  A vengeful reporter, is she was one, would surely do that. We should not assume she isn't. In the field of politics today, many reporters come across as vengeful, on one side or the other. Neither is. That is not even the nature of a tort case. One side is equating money with justice. The other side expelled a scoundrel (you have described expulsion as a fate worse than hellfire) once his deeds were known and presumably saw him jailed for a long long time, though that doesn't seem to have happened - but if it did not happen, it is clearly the legal system's screw-up, not ours.  Unless there is some reason he should not be jailed, a reason not reported, and a reason that would alter everything.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Jennifer White