Accounting equation: does income really decrease equity?
"If your income stream goes up, it would usually increase both your ""income"" term and your ""assets"" term since that money sits in your bank account as an asset. (Even more likely a combination of assets and expenses go up if you have cost associated with the increase in income.)  In this case, they balance in the equation and your equity doesn't change. The question as you posed it is true mathematically, but the ""paradox"" happens because you're not taking into account where the money form the increased income falls in other terms of the equation." "Equity is the term to make things balance. In a simple transaction, you get $100 paid to you. Income goes up by $100 and the asset of whatever bank account or petty cash drawer you put it into also goes up by $100. Equity is unchanged. If for some reason you had to take some income into your books, but no asset increased, no debt decreased, and you had no way to take an offsetting expense into your books, then this would lower your equity. How else to explain having ""earned"" $100 but having nothing to show for it?" The accounting equation, in short, is: This can be further broken down into: Which can be further broken down into: The GnuCash equation is right, though I would substitute the word equity in that equation with a more-specific paid-in capital. Equity is (simply put) made up of 2 parts: shareholders' equity and retained earnings. Shareholders' equity is the amount invested by shareholders. Retained earnings is the amount earned by the business on behalf of the shareholders. Retained earnings is directly affected by your net income (which is income minus expenses). An increase in income will result in an increase in retained earnings. This must be balanced somewhere. Usually an increase in an asset. It may also be balanced by a decrease in equity. Likewise, increase in expenses will result in a decrease in retained earnings, which must also be balanced.
"Bookkeeping and double-entry accounting is really designed for tracking the finances of a single entity. It sounds like you're trying to use it to keep multiple entities' information, which may somewhat work but isn't really going to be the easiest to understand. Here's a few approaches: In this approach, the books are entirely from your perspective. So, if you're holding onto money that ""really"" belongs to your kids, then what you've done is you're taking a loan from them. This means that you should record it as a liability on your books. If you received $300, of which $100 was actually yours, $100 belongs to Kid #1 (and thus is a loan from him), and $100 belongs to Kid #2 (and thus is a loan from her), you'd record it just that way. Note that you only received $100 of income, since that's the only money that's ""yours"", and the other $200 you're only holding on behalf of your kids. When you give the money to your kids or spend it on their behalf, then you debit the liability accordingly and credit the Petty Cash or other account you spent it from. If you wanted to do this in excruciating detail, then your kids could each have their own set of books, in which they would see a transfer from their own Income:Garage Sale account into their Assets:Held by Parents account. For this, you just apportion each of your asset accounts into subaccounts tracking how much money each of you has in it. This lets you treat the whole family as one single entity, sharing in the income, expenses, etc. It lets you see the whole pool of money as being the family's, but also lets you track internally some value of assets for each person. Whenever you spend money you need to record which subaccount it came from, and it could be more challenging if you actually need to record income or expenses separately per person (for some sort of tax reasons, say) unless you also break up each Income and Expense account per person as well. (In which case, it may be easier just to have each person keep their entirely separate set of books.) I don't see a whole lot of advantages, but I'll mention it because you suggested using equity accounts. Equity is designed for tracking how much ""capital"" each ""investor"" contributes to the entity, and for tracking a household it can be hard for that to make a lot of sense, though I suppose it can be done. From a math perspective, Equity is treated exactly like Liabilities in the accounting equation, so you could end up using it a lot like in my Approach #1, where Equity represents how much you owe each of the kids. But in that case, I'd find it simpler to just go ahead and treat them as Liabilities. But if it makes you feel better to just use the word Equity rather than Liability, to represent that the kids are ""investing"" in the household or the like, go right ahead. If you're going to look at the books from your perspective and the kids as investing in it, the transaction would look like this: And it's really all handled in the same way an Approach #1. If on the other hand, you really want the books to represent ""the family"", then you'd need to have the family's books really look more like a partnership. This is getting a bit out of my league, but I'd imagine it'd be something like this: That is to say, the family make the sale, and has the money, and the ""shareholders"" could see it as such, but don't have any obvious direct claim to the money since there hasn't been a distribution to them yet. Any assets would just be assumed to be split three ways, if it's an equal partnership. Then, when being spent, the entity would have an Expense transaction of ""Dividend"" or the like, where it distributes the money to the shareholders so that they could do something with it. Alternatively, you'd just have the capital be contributed, And then any ""income"" would have to be handled on the individual books of the ""investors"" involved, as it would represent that they make the money, and then contributed it to the ""family books"". This approach seems much more complicated than I'd want to do myself, though." In the United States taxes on the sale of a principal residence are based on the difference between the sale price and the cost of the home. Assuming you meet the requirements you can shelter 250,000 or 500,000 of gains from the sale of your principal residence.  This calculation is not related to the loan balance. The basic equation is sales price minus purchase price. It get a little more complex because some costs to purchase and sell the home are included in the calculation, or if you made renovations to the house that will increase your costs and decrease your gains. Trying to decrease the loan balance just before selling the house would just be paying yourself that money at the settlement table. It could save you some money on interest between now and settlement but emptying your bank account to save a few bucks doesn't seem worth it. I would also prefer to have the money in the bank to pay for some expenses that will popup getting the house sold, you moving, and the settlement date. Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective.  For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds.  Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day.  The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds.   Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund.  And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing.  Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader.  It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders.  However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term.  If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders.  If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders.   Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing.  They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing.   It seems the author is confused. Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want.  The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split: 1.) There is no logic in this question, because when there is an increase in net income for the year it will be in the form of something, ie it can be cash and cash equivalent like cash in hand or cash at bank. So as your ques says if there is increase in net income of 20 then asset side also increase by 20(cash) which makes the equation  Asset = liability + share capital tally 2.) Balance sheet is a statement of assets, liabilities, and capital of a business or other organization. Expenditure or income related items wont come under balance sheet it comes under profit and loss account 3.) Stockholders' equity can increase just as easy. When a firm issues bonus to the existing share holders from free reserve a/c or capital redemption reserve a/c or security premium this will increase the share holders equity and also decreases the reserve a/c "Question:  Why is ""negative equity"" on a home such a huge deal? Whether or not your home equity/mortgage balance is positive or negative, it's not like your monthly payments are changing at all, right? Regardless of if you have a mortgage or were renting an apartment, you'd still have to pay to live there, right? If every month you're still going to be out $1000 one or another, some equity is better than no equity right?" "Well, as they state ""the decreases in median net worth appear to have been driven most strongly by a broad collapse in house prices"".  When you're caught holding an overvalued asset, was your previous worth really a true estimate? A better headline might be ""median family wealth corrected to true value after previous accounting errors found.""" The price of a future with an underlying that pays dividends is  As you can see, since the value of dividends is subtracted from the value of the underlying equity, the future's price is lowered if dividends rise. Compounding that effect with the dividend effect on equity prices, reducing their prices, the future should suffer more.