The Problem with Budgets, IRL

It starts on a Sunday evening. You’ve opened the banking app, made a cup of tea, and sat down with the sort of quiet determination usually reserved for filing a tax return. You’re going to do it properly this time. Groceries: £300. Transport: £180. Subscriptions: £65. Social: £120. You round the numbers, feel a brief flush of control, and close the app.

By Wednesday, the boiler has broken. By Friday, someone at work has announced leaving drinks you can’t really skip. By the following Tuesday, your child has come home from school with a letter about a trip that costs £80 and needs paying by Thursday. None of these things are extravagant. None of them were planned. And none of them existed in the version of your life that Sunday’s budget was built for.

That gap – between the budget and the life – is where most of the guilt lives. And it’s worth asking whether the problem is really you, or whether it’s the tool.

Article Summary

Most budgets fall apart. Not because people are careless, but because life doesn't stay still long enough for a fixed plan to keep up. That gap between the plan and reality is where most of the guilt lives. The article below questions whether the problem is really the person, or whether it's the tool itself.

Research backs the idea that financial life is far less predictable than budgeting assumes. Household income and spending shift significantly from month to month for most people. A £500 swing in a single month is common. In addition, for lower earners, unpredictable pay is the norm rather than the exception. Budgets, by design, assume a stable month that rarely arrives.

Budgets can also feel psychologically heavy. Rigid categories create a kind of all-or-nothing thinking. Overspend in one area and the whole plan feels broken. That sense of failure often leads people to abandon the budget entirely, which tends to make things worse.

Budgets aren't useless, but a fixed monthly plan built on imaginary stability will struggle to survive contact with real life. What tends to work better is building in flexibility from the start, expecting the unexpected, and treating financial planning as something that adjusts rather than something that judges.

The Problem with Budgets, IRL

The myth of the stable month

Most budgets are built on an assumption so deeply embedded we barely notice it: that next month will look roughly like this month. A predictable salary arrives on a predictable date. Bills stay where they are. Nothing breaks, nobody gets ill, and no one invites you to a wedding in a castle three hours away.

The evidence suggests this month almost never arrives. The JPMorgan Chase Institute, analysing anonymised banking data from millions of US accounts, found that household income and spending both fluctuate by around 30 per cent month to month. That’s roughly the equivalent of adding or losing a rent payment in any given month. In the UK, Nest Insight’s 2024 “Fluctuation Nation” report, produced with Glasgow Caledonian University and Aston University, found that around 25 million people are affected by the same volatility, with the average household seeing a £500 monthly variance. The Resolution Foundation’s earlier work estimated that four in five low-income earners in the UK have volatile pay.

Jonathan Morduch and Rachel Schneider, in their US Financial Diaries project, tracked 235 low- to moderate-income households over a full year and found something that complicates the picture further. Most of the volatility wasn’t caused by job losses or big life events. It came from within-job variation: shifts in hours, overtime, tips, commission. The JPMorgan Chase data backed this up, showing that 86 per cent of income volatility stemmed from within-paycheck fluctuation. In other words, even when people are doing everything “right” – staying employed, showing up, working hard – the numbers still move.

A budget designed for a stable month is, in practice, a budget designed for a month that rarely happens.

Why we keep building them anyway

If the data is this clear, then why do we keep writing budgets? Part of the answer is structural – the tools available tend to present monthly grids and fixed categories because that’s how software thinks. But a larger part of the answer is psychological. We are, it turns out, reliably poor at predicting our own financial futures, even over short timeframes.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky identified the planning fallacy back in 1979: our tendency to underestimate costs and risks while overestimating how smoothly things will go. When we sit down to budget, we tend to plan for the idealised month – the one where nothing breaks and no one gets ill. Kahneman called this the “inside view”: focusing on the specifics of this plan, rather than on what actually happened in the last twelve months. Overlaying this is optimism bias, which roughly 80 per cent of us carry. A 2023 study by Chris Dawson at the University of Bath, drawing on over 36,000 UK adults tracked across a decade, found that higher cognitive ability reduced financial over-optimism by about 35 per cent – suggesting that miscalibrated expectations are partly a product of how our minds process uncertainty, not a moral failing.

Then there’s the more uncomfortable one. David Laibson at Harvard formalised what’s known as hyperbolic discounting: the tendency to value immediate rewards disproportionately over future ones. You might sincerely intend to save £200 next month. But when next month becomes this month, the proximity of a real, tangible spending decision makes the future feel abstract and the present feel urgent. Some people might see this as weakness. It isn't. It’s the annoying architecture of human decision-making.

Richard Thaler’s work on mental accounting adds another layer. We don’t treat money as the perfectly interchangeable thing economics says it is. We label it: rent money, holiday money, fun money. A tax refund feels different from a salary, even though it’s the same pound. These mental categories can be useful, they help us impose structure, but they can also make budgets rigid in ways that don’t reflect how life actually works. When the boiler breaks, pulling from the “holiday fund” feels like a loss, even if it’s the rational thing to do. Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory tells us losses sting about twice as hard as equivalent gains feel good. Adjusting a budget doesn’t feel like sensible reallocation. It just feels like defeat.

The people who need budgets most

There’s a cruel irony at the centre of all this. Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir, in their book Scarcity, describe what they call the “bandwidth tax”: the finding that financial scarcity itself captures cognitive attention, reducing the mental resources available for planning and self-regulation. In a landmark 2013 study published in Science, Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, and Zhao found that the cognitive impact of financial worry was equivalent to losing roughly 13 IQ points – comparable to a full night without sleep. The same Indian sugarcane farmers performed significantly worse on cognitive tests before harvest, when money was tight, than after it, when they were relatively comfortable. Same people. Same brains. Different financial circumstances.

The implication is that the people who most need effective financial tools are the ones whose cognitive resources are most depleted by the very act of managing scarcity. A budget that demands constant vigilance and recalculation from someone already stretched thin isn’t just unhelpful, it’s asking the impossible while calling it 'common sense'.

And the consequences of volatility aren’t abstract either. The Aspen Institute’s research with Washington University found that households experiencing persistent income volatility were roughly 288 per cent more likely to miss housing payments and around three times more likely to turn to payday loans. Research by Bufe, Roll, Kondratjeva, Skees, and Grinstein-Weiss, published in Social Indicators Research in 2021, found that income shocks were more damaging to financial wellbeing than expense shocks or medical shocks. So, as the clock keeps ticking forward, it’s not the budget that fails, it’s the assumption beneath it.

It’s also worth noting that this isn’t a problem confined to individual behaviour. Jacob Hacker, the Yale political scientist, has documented what he calls “the Great Risk Shift”: a decades-long structural transfer of economic risk from governments and employers to individual households. The shift from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution schemes, the rise of precarious work, the erosion of collective safety nets – all of these have placed greater demands on personal budgeting without increasing anyone’s capacity to do it well. The Nest Insight research makes a similar observation for the UK: financial products, policies, and employment practices are still largely designed for people whose lifestyle is regular. A growing proportion of the workforce doesn’t fit that description.

None of this means budgeting is pointless. But it does mean the conventional approach – the fixed grid, the rigid categories, the assumption that discipline alone will hold it together – deserves serious scrutiny. The cross-cultural evidence from Portfolios of the Poor, the landmark study by Collins, Morduch, Rutherford, and Ruthven tracking households in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa, found that people on extremely low and volatile incomes weren’t financially passive. They managed complex webs of saving, borrowing, and lending across eight to ten financial instruments at any given time. What they lacked wasn’t sophistication. It was stable income. Their strategies were adaptive, flexible, and responsive to change – the opposite of a spreadsheet with fixed rows.

The research on what actually helps points in a similar direction. Thaler and Sunstein’s work on choice architecture suggests that automation and smart defaults – automatic savings transfers, pre-commitment devices, “save more tomorrow” programmes – tend to outperform approaches that rely on willpower alone. Soman and Cheema, writing in the Journal of Marketing Research, showed that earmarking and partitioning money into separate accounts increased savings among lower-income households, working with mental accounting rather than against it. The JPMorgan Chase Institute estimated that middle-income households need around £1,900 in everyday cash buffer just to weather typical monthly ups and downs. Building that buffer into the design of a financial tool, rather than leaving it as an afterthought, changes the entire premise. This sounds like a lot. And it is, if you need £1,900 extra every month. But that's not the case. The purpose is to ensure that buffer is around so it can be allocated and used for when these volatile or sporadic events arrive. That's exactly what the Pipin Envelopes are designed for.

So, we believe the question isn’t whether people should budget. It’s whether the tools they’re given respect the lives they actually lead. A budget that works is one that expects the boiler to break, the school trip to arrive unannounced, and the hours to vary from one week to the next. It plans for shocks as a central feature, not an optional extra. It reduces the number of decisions required, rather than adding to them. And it meets people where they are – cognitively, emotionally, financially – rather than where a spreadsheet assumes they ought to be.

The problem with budgets that assume your life behaves is that your life won’t. And the sooner financial tools are built around that truth, the sooner they might actually help.

This is information – not financial advice or recommendation. Do your own research and seek independent advice when required.

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M. and Tice, D.M. (1998) 'Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), pp. 1252–1265.

Bufe, S., Roll, S., Kondratjeva, O., Skees, S. and Grinstein-Weiss, M. (2021) 'Financial shocks and financial well-being: What builds resiliency in lower-income households?', Social Indicators Research, 161(1), pp. 379–407.

Burke, J. and Perez-Arce, F. (2020) Longitudinal changes in financial well-being, financial behaviors, and life events. Washington, DC: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S. and Ruthven, O. (2009) Portfolios of the poor: How the world's poor live on $2 a day. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dawson, C. (2023) 'Looking on the (B)right side of life: Cognitive ability and miscalibrated financial expectations', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(9), pp. 1703–1715.

Farrell, D. and Greig, F. (2016) Paychecks, paydays, and the online platform economy: Big data on income volatility. Washington, DC: JPMorgan Chase Institute.

Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000) 'The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), pp. 1–17.

Friedman, M. (1957) A theory of the consumption function. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hacker, J.S. (2006) The great risk shift: The new economic insecurity and the decline of the American dream. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hagger, M.S., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. et al. (2016) 'A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect', Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), pp. 546–573.

Hannagan, A. and Morduch, J. (2015) Income gains and month-to-month income volatility: Household evidence from the US Financial Diaries. NYU Wagner Working Paper.

Hills, J., Jenkins, S.P. and Ermisch, J. (eds.) What do we know about income and earnings volatility?, Review of Income and Wealth (2024).

Institute of Social and Economic Research (2009) The impact of life events on financial capability. London: Financial Services Authority.

JPMorgan Chase Institute (2016) The monthly stress-test on family finances. Washington, DC: JPMorgan Chase Institute.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1991) 'Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias', Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), pp. 193–206.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) 'Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk', Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291.

Laibson, D. (1997) 'Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting', The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), pp. 443–478.

Lovallo, D. and Kahneman, D. (2003) 'Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives' decisions', Harvard Business Review, 81(7), pp. 56–63.

Lusardi, A., Schneider, D. and Tufano, P. (2011) 'Financially fragile households: Evidence and implications', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring, pp. 83–134.

Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. and Zhao, J. (2013) 'Poverty impedes cognitive function', Science, 341(6149), pp. 976–980.

Morduch, J. (2015) Economics and the social meaning of money. NYU Wagner Faculty Working Paper.

Morduch, J. and Schneider, R. (2017) The financial diaries: How American families cope in a world of uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mullainathan, S. and Shafir, E. (2013) Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt.

Nest Insight (2024) Fluctuation nation: Lifting the lid on the millions of people managing a volatile income. London: Nest Insight.

Pew Charitable Trusts (2017) How income volatility interacts with American families' financial security. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Roll, S., Bufe, S., Kondratjeva, O. and Grinstein-Weiss, M. (2017) The experience of volatility in low and moderate-income households: Results from a national survey. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute EPIC.

Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988) 'Status quo bias in decision making', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), pp. 7–59.

Shefrin, H. and Thaler, R.H. (1988) 'The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis', Economic Inquiry, 26(4), pp. 609–643.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G. (2002) 'The affect heuristic', in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–420.

Soman, D. and Cheema, A. (2011) 'Earmarking and partitioning: Increasing saving by low-income households', Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), pp. S14–S21.

Thaler, R.H. (1985) 'Mental accounting and consumer choice', Marketing Science, 4(3), pp. 199–214.

Thaler, R.H. (1999) 'Mental accounting matters', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), pp. 183–206.

Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Weinstein, N.D. (1980) 'Unrealistic optimism about future life events', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), pp. 806–820.

Zelizer, V.A. (1994) The social meaning of money: Pin money, paychecks, poor relief, and other currencies. New York: Basic Books.