If something is coming into my account will it be debit or credit in my account?
"The bank will make this even more confusing because they use the terms from their own perspective. From the bank's perspective  (printed on your statements) credit: Money into your account  (increases the bank's liabilities) debit: Money out of your account  (decrease bank liabilities) From your perspective: It depends on the nature of the transfer of money, but here are the most common for a personal account. Income into your account: Credit Expenses out of your account: Debit Payment on a loan made for an asset (house/car): Credit for the loan account, debit for the equity account for the car/house/etc. Yes, it's complicated. Neither credits nor debits are always a + or -. That's why I agree with the advice of the others here that double-entry accounting is overkill for your personal finances. Note: I simplified the above examples for the purpose of clarity. Technically every transaction in double entry accounting includes both a credit and a debit (hence the ""double"" in the name). In fact, sometimes a transaction involves more than one credit or debit, but always at least one of each. Also, this is for EACH party. So any transaction between you and your bank involves at least FOUR debits and/or credits when all involved are considered." It sounds like you're mixing a simple checkbook register with double-entry bookkeeping. Do you need a double-entry level of rigor? Otherwise, why not have two columns, one for income (like a paycheck) and one for expenses (like paying a cable bill)?  Then add up both columns and then take the difference of the sums to get your increase or decrease for the time period. If you want to break up income and expenses further, then you can do that too. I agree with mbhunter's suggestion of labeling your columns, 'income' and 'expenses'. However, to answer your question, money coming in (a paycheque, for example) is credited to your account. Money going out (a utility bill, for example) is debited from your account. There's no real 'why'... this is simply the definition of the words. "If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be ""Crediting"" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account." "The bank ""credit's"" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity                             $500   =                    $500 Cash is the ""Asset"" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced." Most bank registers (where you write down entries) show deposits (+) to account as a CREDIT. Payments, fees, and withdrawals are DEBITs to your bank accounnt. On loans such as credit card accounts, a credit to your loan account is a payment or other reductions of the amount you owe. A charge to your account is a DEBIT to you loan account. They did this just to confuse us!
I've seen agism go the other way on my job.   A Generation X'er Accounts Payable Clerk in my department was promoted to an Accounts Payable Supervisory role simply because she has kids and my Baby Boomer boss sympathized with her on a personal level. The punchline is this woman doesn't understand accounting on a fundamental level (she has some junior college education, no degree).  I (Generation Y) on the other hand had to train up my Baby Boomer boss in our industry over the course of a year. Attempt to teach him how to use our ERP system (he refuses to learn how to use our accounting system and he's the CFO, big red flag, we're going on year 2 now), cover for him when he make bone-headed Accounting 101 mistakes, and be the defacto department manager (I'm the Senior Accountant) because his Accounts Payable supervisor doesn't know how to debit and credit accounts correctly. The buck should stop with her when it comes to Accounts Payable transactions but she's too incompetent to handle the responsibility.  So now my boss is looking hire a new staff to the department and I'm gunning for a Manager's title (I do the managing already I just want the official title and pay raise). In addition I would like to have an official direct report, instead of all this  unofficial direct reporting going on.   I found out last week that I'm not up for consideration, but the girl that has NO COLLEGE DEGREE who was in my position before me, but left (knew someone who got her a better job) is on the short list for the position. Of course she's a Generation X'er. I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out.  I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve. "The following is based on my Experian credit scoring feedback and experience here in the UK over many years.  (And for further information I currently hold a credit score of 999, the highest possible, with 6 credit cards.)  Now I'm assuming that while there may be some differences in particulars in your case due to the difference in locality nevertheless the below should hopefully provide some broad guidelines and reasonable conclusion in your situation: Having a large number of active credit accounts may be seen as a negative.  However having a large number of settled accounts should on the contrary have a positive effect on your score.  As you keep your accounts mostly settled, I think having another card will not be to your detriment and should in time be beneficial. A large total credit balance outstanding may count against you.  (But see the next point.)   Having your total outstanding debt on all credit accounts be a smaller proportion of your total available credit, counts in your favour.  This means having more cards for the same amount of credit in use, is net-net in your favour.  It also has the effect of making even larger outstanding credit balances (as in point 2) to be a lower percentage of your total available credit, and consequently will indicate lower risk to lenders.   It appears from my experience the higher the highest credit limit on a single card you are issued (and are managing responsibly e.g. either paid off or used responsibly) the better. Needless to say, any late payments count against you.  The best thing to do then is to set up a direct debit for the minimum amount to be paid like clockwork every month.  Lenders really like consistent payers. :) New credit accounts initially will count against you for a while.  But as the accounts age and are managed responsibly or settled they will eventually count in your favour and increase your score. Making many credit applications in a short space of time may count against you as you may be seen to be credit reliant.  Conclusion: On balance I would say get the other card.  Your credit score might be slightly lower for a couple of months but eventually it will be to your benefit as per the above.    Having another card also means more flexibility and more more options if you do end up with a credit balance that you want to finance and pay off over a period as cheaply as possible.   In the UK the credit card companies are falling over themselves trying to offer one ""interest free"" or 0% ""balance transfer"" offers.  Of course they're not truly 0% since you typically have to pay a ""transfer fee"" of a couple of percent. Still, this can be quite cheap credit, much much cheaper than the headline APR rates actually associated with the cards.  The catch is that any additional spending on such cards are paid off first (and attract interest at the normal rate until paid off).  Usually also if you miss a payment the interest rate reverts to the normal rate.  But these pitfalls are easily avoided (pay by direct debit and don't use card you've got a special deal on for day to day expenses.) So, having more cards available is then very useful because you then have choice.  You can roll expensive debts to the cheapest lender at your disposal for as long as they'll offer, and then simply not use that card for any purchases (while paying off the balance as cheaply as possible), meanwhile using another card for day to day expenses." As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account.  The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account.  for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights! "My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons.  Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective.  Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively.  But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view.  ""Fair"" and ""unfair"" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is.  This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings.  I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories.  You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible.  This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history.  (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally.  This spending money (i.e., ""fun money"" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained.  This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income.  If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time.  One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits.  For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account.  That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it.  For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit.  It's not ""fair"" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system.  You're not ""funding her lifestyle"" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is.  If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home?  Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer).  You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect.  My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution." "I think your confusion comes from the negative impact when a creditor writes off your bad credit and ceases attempting to collect it. ""Chargebacks"" as you call them are an attempt to undo fraudulent charges on your card, whether from stolen credit card info or from a merchant who is using shady business practices. For what it's worth, if you joined on December 20, January 20 seems like a reasonable date for the next billing cycle, with the December 31 date reflecting the fact that their system couldn't automatically bill you the day you joined. I also think it's reasonable for you to ask them to refund the bill for the second month if you do not plan to use their gym further. So the dispute seems like a reasonable one on both sides. Good luck." Assuming that it's not inventory that is sold in the following year or a depreciable asset, you can deduct it when you make the purchase. The courts have ruled that credit cards balances are considered debt. It's treated the same way as if you went to the bank, got a loan, and used cash or a check to purchase the items. On your accounting books, you would debit the expense account and credit the credit card liability account. This is only for credit cards, which are considered loans. If you use a store charge card, then you cannot deduct it until you pay. Those are considered accounts payable.  I'm an IRS agent and a CPA. I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there. The post that you linked to saying that a pre-paid credit card is really a debit card is kind of right and kind of wrong.  From your point of view, to get a $1000 pre-paid credit card, you need to hand over $1000. So nobody is giving any credit to you. You can only spend money that you actually own, like a debit card.  For the merchant accepting your card, it is exactly like a credit card. He doesn't know what deals you had to make to get the card. The merchant just knows that up to some amount, he will receive money. So in that sense it is a credit card and will be accepted like a credit card.