Bill every 30 days

This should be easy but I don't see a way to do this. I see monthly on the
Nth day of the month or the last day. There doesn't seem to be a way to
setup a reoccurring bill every 30 days. Am I missing something?
Reply to
JohnA
You're not missing anything. The finest supported repeating interval is weekly so the best we can do with a single reminder is schedule every 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, ... days. For 30 days, I suggest setting the reminder to be due every 4 weeks and then pushing "Due next on" date forward two days when you enter the bill.
Reply to
Sherlock
"JohnA" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
You're not missing anything. Quicken is. I've wrestled with this for years.
Reply to
Porter Smith
"Porter Smith" wrote
"JohnA" wrote in
You're not missing anything. Quicken is. I've wrestled with this for years. ------------------------------------
I suggest that both of you may be misunderstanding the issue; a problem which you will have to confront.
What makes you think that providing an option to a bill to be due "every 30 days", would be beneficial to Quicken, Inc.?
What makes you think that there are enough Quicken users who have bills due "every 30 days" to make it worthwhile for Quicken, Inc. to provide such an option?
What makes you think that Quicken, Inc. has not already considered your desire and already found it not cost effective?
Did you ever give any consideration to why software products include some capabilities and not others?
If you can not demonstrate that your desire is economically feasible, you have no legitimate complaint.
Reply to
John Pollard
I have to ask, and your reply might help us to understand your situation ...
What sort of bill is due EXACTLY every 30 days? Which means that in some months you have to pay it twice.
Reply to
danbrown
Ahhh... there's always one in every bunch. I didn't expect this from Mr. Pollard though since he usually is helpful (when he gets off the high horse he mounts sometimes). If you look at my post, it was a genuine request for information because it seemed like a no-brainer. In this case, he had nothing to add but had to go on a tirade about which features make sense for Quicken to add. I'm not interested in rationales about why or why not a feature *might* be added to Quicken - as a non-Quicken employee, this is useless speculation on Mr. Pollard's part.
But since he brings it up to this group, I will point out that his claim that 30 day reoccurring billing is not common enough for Quicken to add is questionable given the standard NET 30 terms in business cycles and the strange options that are supported such as billing every 7 weeks on a particular day (I'll bet nobody on this group has such a bill). I would also add that unless someone asks for a feature, it almost certainly won't be added (no guarantee that it would be) and asking for a feature is implicitly a complaint that a needed feature is missing. Since Quicken asks for user feedback, your statement that people shouldn't complain unless they can demonstrate economic feasibility makes no sense - that's not the way it's done. I'll get off my high horse now :-)
"Porter Smith" wrote
"JohnA" wrote in
You're not missing anything. Quicken is. I've wrestled with this for years. ------------------------------------
I suggest that both of you may be misunderstanding the issue; a problem which you will have to confront.
What makes you think that providing an option to a bill to be due "every 30 days", would be beneficial to Quicken, Inc.?
What makes you think that there are enough Quicken users who have bills due "every 30 days" to make it worthwhile for Quicken, Inc. to provide such an option?
What makes you think that Quicken, Inc. has not already considered your desire and already found it not cost effective?
Did you ever give any consideration to why software products include some capabilities and not others?
If you can not demonstrate that your desire is economically feasible, you have no legitimate complaint.
Reply to
JohnA
"JohnA" wrote
"If you look at my post, it was a genuine request for information because it seemed like a no-brainer. " ------------------------------------------------------------
Calling my comments a tirade just confirms what I suspected.
Your allegedly "genuine request" (and the ignorant comment by the other user that I referenced when I said that "both of you may be misunderstanding the issue"); contained an assumption which I called into question. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "JohnA" wrote
In this case, he had nothing to add but had to go on a tirade about which features make sense for Quicken to add. I'm not interested in rationales about why or why not a feature *might* be added to Quicken - as a non-Quicken employee, this is useless speculation on Mr. Pollard's part. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to your b.s., I made no speculation: I called on you to support your notion that you had a legitimate question. You failed to do so ... you failed to try to do so ... assuming instead that shooting the messenger would make your bogus question become a legitimate question.
----------------------------------------------- But since he brings it up to this group, I will point out that his claim that 30 day reoccurring billing is not common enough for Quicken to add is questionable ....
-------------------------------------- I made no such "claim". Trying to put words and ideas in my mouth demonstrates that you have no point.

"What makes you think that there are enough Quicken users who have bills due "every 30 days" to make it worthwhile for Quicken, Inc. to provide such an option?"
That is not a claim - even without the question mark, that is a question. And it remains unanswered.
If you had the information necessary to demonstrate that your desire was one deserving of Quicken's consideration, you should have provided it. It is no accident that you did not.
You are the one who "speculated" ... without a shred of legitimate evidence to support your speculation.
The concept that you attempted to ignore is known as a cost/benefit analysis. Businesses use them - customers do not. Customers don't employ cons/benefit analyses because: - most customers don't know what they are - most customers who know what they are, don't care what cost/benefit analyses demonstrate (preferring the false assumption that the business is incompetent and/or uncaring) - customers never have any of the necessary information to perform a legitimate cost/benefit analysis.
Such knowledge would require (at a minimum) that you know what percentage of Quicken users have the problem you want Quicken to fix; how seriously those Quicken users are being harmed by not having the modification you desire; and how much it would cost to provide that option (you blithely and ignorantly, assumed it would be "easy" - something about which neither you, nor any Quicken user, could possibly comment intelligently).
We live in a world where too many humans falsely believe they are entitled to pretty much whatever they want: reality is a substantial barrier to that notion. Businesses exist to make a profit, they're not charities: what they do has to make financial sense.
You did not have a clue about the answers to any of the questions I asked - so you attempted to divert attention by attacking me instead. If that made you feel better, that's your problem.
There you go: now you have a tirade to help you understand what one is.
Reply to
John Pollard

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.