The author does a lot of fence-sitting for very little conclusion. For instance:<p><pre><code> Your focus should be on responsibly tracking your cashflow
</code></pre>
versus<p><pre><code> [A]ll I really only care about is one thing: my bank balance
</code></pre>
Responsibly tracking cash flow is completely different than knowing your bank balance. One is hard and requires keeping track of income, payments, expenses, etc; the other involves pushing a button at an ATM.<p>Similarly:<p><pre><code> You...need an accountant. Someone who can do your tax
</code></pre>
versus<p><pre><code> what you really need is software
</code></pre>
TurboTax != a trained accountant.<p>It's also childishly written. "The nasty stuff the tax man needs to see," really? It's almost as bad as Blogger Bob. This reads like (bad) advertising copy for a press release, but it somehow got five points in five minutes. I'd suspect fake accounts, but pg is good about detecting upvote rings.
I'm guessing this guy isn't an accountant anymore because he was really bad at it. What he refers to as "keeping accountants happy" is actually keeping the government, investors, and partners happy. It's also answering questions like "Where is all my money going?" and "Is one of my employees stealing from me?".<p>Anal-retentive bookkeeping exists because life is often deeply unkind to those who fail to keep track of their money.