Can you transfer money between savings goals?

I like this idea too. I can anticipate a scenario such as having an 'emergency savings' goal and a 'new dishwasher' goal but if your dishwasher suddenly breaks down you may want to use some of your 'emergency savings' to buy a new one right away. Having to close the entire 'emergency savings' and transfer funds to your bank account and then back again and recreate a new 'emergency savings' account is just too many steps. It would be much better to just transfer some $ from one goal to the other.

Thanks!

Given that it takes a week to withdraw the funds, then a second week to add them back, this inter-goal barrier is a huge unnecessary hassle. I mentioned Smartypig to a couple friends, and while they were highly interested in the high APR, they ended up deciding to not sign up when I mentioned this goal barrier.

In addition to being inflexible, the current barrier actually encourages users to overspend. For example, a user can easily enlarge a computer-buying goal if they decide to keep saving for more computer than they need, but they're faced with this barrier if they instead decide to just get a cheap email machine with some of the money they've already saved up.

I don't know if the barrier is intentional, but if it is, here's a compromise which would cover most situations: When a goal is cashed out, allow the user to move a limited percentage of that money into other new or existing goals. The maximum inter-goal transfer could be something like 80%, which would mean that the user always has to cash out at least 20% of the goal being closed. This limit prevents users from closing a goal unless they're withdrawing money at the same time, but it also gives them the freedom to not splurge the entire amount they saved.

I'd really like to see this fixed, and the current workaround really sounds unreasonable. If the current barrier is intentional, I think this compromise I've described (or something like it) would actually be far better at promoting responsible finances, because it doesn't encourage overspending -- unlike the current barrier.
However, the compromise I've described isn't perfect. It doesn't cover for the scenario that Alan described. If the current barrier is indeed a result of philosophy rather than technical issues, perhaps the best policy is to just trust your users with managing their own money, and let them move funds freely between goals whenever they might have a change in priorities.

I just tried to do this just now, temporarily stop a goal, and was faced with a myriad of options for with what to do with the money. From debit cards, to an Amazon spending card, to a transfer back to my account, I was surprised these were the options given to me by a bank that promoted itself on encouraging savings piggy bank style. So I've got to smash my piggy bank rather than put it into a larger one? awwwww.

So for now, I've left my goals as is, but reduced the monthly payments - a bit of a time consuming process.

But I really think it would serve everyone - like people here have said - to remove the intergoal barrier OR to temporarily halt a goal, netflix style. You can put an goal on hold, with regular reminders to users that they should restart it if they are stalling with their savings, etc. The Netflix model is really useful as it saves all your info and encourages users to come back with one click.

ta and keep up the good work!

Woooo hoo! yay!