I don't know. I mean, they did set aside money, presumably responsibly, a little at a time, specifically for that. There's always going to be something more important in the grand scheme of things.

That's your own money. If you want to eat ramen all year so you can buy a jet ski, that's great. This is America, do what you want with your money. If my tax money is going to pay for "unnecessary" (and it's arguable if this or not) art instead of firefighters, infrastructure, tax cuts, etc. then I'm not a happy camper. I realize that this is probably just one of a million examples across the country, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or that we have to continue to let government spend in this way.

Which brings up one of the things that bugs me the most, different "funds" and all the shuffling money from one fund to the other and all the earmarking in general. You put the money in one fund, then you create a budget to spend it from that one fund, that's all you need. You don't need a billion funds, some of which you can raid at any time and some of which you dasn't ever touch.

That really wasn't the point of the question. Obviously you "can" buy it, the question was would it be irresponsible or not.

It's mostly a matter of perception, but basically you have income, savings, expenses. If have a jet ski fund that you put $10 in every month, and then something crazy expensive happens to your house that insurance doesn't cover, what are you going to do? Not fix your house because that $1,000 in the jet ski fund absolutely can only be used for a jet ski? No, you're going to steal the money from that fund so you can fix your house (assuming you don't have enough money in your "rainy day" fund to cover it). Which makes the jet ski fund kind of pointless in the first place. That $10 a month goes into your savings, and when you have sufficient savings you can go get a jet ski.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a budget that says here's my income and here's where it's going, I'm saying it's a waste of time to break down the savings portion of your budget into X number of categories, with Y number of projects in each category, etc. when really it's all savings (things with liquidity issues would be separated though, meaning 401ks and such).

And instead of having ear marked funds, just manage a priority list of savings funded expenses.

Are talking personal finances again? Because I sort of do take the time to come up with x number of categories with y number of projects. If for no other reason than it gives me goals to shoot for, and it helps me know how realistic some of my goals are. Is the personal finance analogy lost here finally?

Yeah from a personal finance standpoint, this is pretty much the exact opposite of what most personal finance experts recommend. I've always been pretty good with money, and I still have separate "accounts" for anything large that is going to be paid sometime in the next 1-3 years (yearly homeowner's insurance, vacations, charity, etc) along with a separate emergency fund account. With pretty much any online savings account, this is simple, and then I immediately know exactly what the balance in my checking account represents.

Should have included a quote, yes I was talking personal finances there. If it works for you then feel free to ignore me, but I'd still say you're wasting your time. I'm not sure how the "goals to shoot for" is really helpful. Are you going to spend less on food or work more overtime to get to your goals quicker?

We can debate all night about if the approach is stupid or not. (We don't do it.) I think Alex's point was mainly that you aren't going to not eat for a month because your food account is empty, while you have $300 in your golf account, and as long as that's the case, it's rather pointless in the end to literally separate the funds, as opposed to just tracking your expenditures. Though at a certain point it's debatable what the difference between the two approaches is anyway. (IE "We have to buy roundy's and eat in, because that money is for golfing" vs "I know I want to go golfing next week, and money will be tight this month, so we should eat in and buy generic.") In one sense, that's an important distinction, because you shouldn't "overspend" on food the next month, at the expense of a rainy day fund, or whatever just because there's a surplus in the "food account." Such an approach could easily lead to spending more money vs just setting a budget. In another sense the difference is splitting hairs.

But if I tracked only my expenses and not a plan for how I'm going to spend money in the future, I probably would never have enough money for a vacation because I would nickel and dime myself on other things because I do technically have the money.