Does a budget comprise expenses, and/or revenue?
Budget means both expenses and revenue. In quite a few cases, say personal finance, typically one refers to budget more from expenses point of view as the revenue is typically fixed/known [mostly salary].   The Operating budget and capital budget are laid out separately as Operating budget gives out day to day expenses that are typically essential, employee salaries, routine maintenance of infrastructure etc. The revenue is also tied in to match this. These are done within the same year. Where as capital budget is to build new infrastructure say a new bridge or other major expense that are done over period of years. The revenues to this are typically tied up differently and can even be linked to getting more funding from other agencies or loans.
If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.)  Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each).  I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund.  To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six.  You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested.  That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings.  This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use).  You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it.  Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing.  Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education.  The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses.  You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast. "I currently use Mint for this, which I see that you have already disqualified but not why you have disqualified it.  Set ""budgets"" for how much you want to spend on what type of expense, and then be sure to assign expenses to a budget as they come in. Mint actually learns what expenses go to each budget and eventually does it automatically." Fuck managerial accounting to death. Anywho, I'm not sure what they mean by the variance being higher or lower in the budget. Variance in principle is the discrepancy from a budget and actual.   I'll try to answer this from what I can see.    The budget variance in this problem is unfavorable for Busy Community Support, mostly caused by a significant underestimating of your salaries expense in the budget. I would question whether your stated goal (of strictly controlling your expenses) is really the problem you should be tackling.  In my opinion, unless you're under financial hardship where you can barely make ends meet, you're much better off using a budget as a high-level, descriptive tool rather than a low-level, prescriptive tool. This is what I would do in your situation: After the first few months, you can start to think about high-level changes that you can make to your spending habits to get the most bang for your buck.  I wouldn't worry about the little expenses, unless they're really adding up to a sizable chunk of your total expenses.  Instead, I would look at things like: eating out too often, buying too many movies, too many impulse buys over $100, etc. Identifying patterns like that will help you make lifestyle changes that will allow you to spend less money without having to micromanage every single expense.  I have tried the micromanaged approach in the past, and it simply doesn't work for me.  There's too much overhead, and eventually I start to feel that it's just not worth it.  Think about it - is it really worth the extra time and energy required to worry about where every dollar goes all month long just to save an additional hundred bucks over what you can do with this passive approach?   I think that by focusing on the big picture, you can get within a couple percentage points of the same amount of savings as if you had micro-managed your expenses, but with much less work and mental strain. Let's put some numbers on this and see what the hourly returns are with each approach, always being optimistic about the micromanaged approach and conservative on the passive approach.   Let's assume you earn $50,000/year.  Let's also assume that if you micromanage all of your expenses, you could manage to save $5000/year beyond what you do now.  And let's say that with the passive approach, you can get within 20 percentage points instead of the 2 I stated earlier, for a savings of $4000/year.  Now what will your hourly returns look like?  The following are based on how I would personally use both systems, so your numbers may vary a bit. Micromanaged Budgeting Savings = $5000 per year = $416.67 per month  Time spent = 15-30 minutes per day = 7.5 - 15 hours per month  Hourly return = $27.78 - $55.56  Passive Budgeting Savings = $4000 per year = $333.33 per month  Time spent = 1 - 2 hours per month Hourly return = $166.67 - $333.33 So clearly the passive approach gives a substantially higher hourly return, even though it gives a lower absolute return.  Maybe more importantly though, if passive budgeting opens up an extra 10 hours a month, you could potentially put those hours into your job and make an extra (10 hours * $25/hour) = $250 a month, or $3000 per year, assuming no extra pay for overtime.  So that means that the passive budgeting approach would actually allow you to save ($4000 + $3000 * .75) = $6250 per year, compared to the $5000 you would save by micromanaging. If you're in a situation where you can't put those hours into more work and you really need that extra $83.34 per month to help make ends meet, then by all means micromanage your expenses and try to save as much as possible.  But if either of the previous conditions are not true for you, you're much better off, in my opinion, using a passive budget. Also, if accounting suddenlly decides to hire a bunch of new employees why should the cost for the computers come out of IT's budget?   As long as IT's budget is subserviant to the whims of other departments you can't really call it a budget at all. Rather, it is just a pool of money that anyone can dip in to. Honestly? Literally anything else. The same way budgets have been done since the dawn of time. If you have a mandatory expense (livable wage because we're prioritizing human life over discretionary spending because ethics) you trim the fat from other areas to make it work. Your chart and your claim don't match. You're looking at one marginal tax rate and saying that its historical change doesn't impact overall federal revenues. This is true on the surface, but you're only looking at one aspect of the overall picture.  Saying that federal revenue doesn't correlate with tax rates is disingenuous. An across the board cut or an across the board increase will both have significant effect. Likewise an increase to the top marginal tax rate by itself would have an impact as long as there were no corresponding cuts or increased expenditures to wipe out the impact.  A budget is a budget whether it's a great big one like the federal government's or a small one like a household budget.  Revenues and expenses need to match in order for the budget to balance. Increasing tax rates increases revenue from everyone within the affected tax bracket. It makes an impact. "There are some tedious parts for sure - often times people hear ""Finance"" and think invoices, accounting, etc., but I would say it's less that 10% of my role. I do handle the budgeting process - what I have enjoyed about that is that it offers a window into the strategy of the firm, and whether they are making investments in areas that align with their strategic objectives.   This is another good question to ask as you get to know different teams - does the FP&amp;A/Finance group have a seat at the table in strategic discussions. In any corp fin function, I think you will find that the more finance is valued as a partner to the business, the more interesting your work will be."