Enlighten me about SAHMs and credit cards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income.

"Income" is not income.

ITA with this. People need to be very realistic when deciding to SAH. You do not have an income. SAHP make many sacrifices financially. You are putting faith in your partner earning an income that they will hold up his/her part of the bargain. I took a hit in income, retirement, and time in the workforce. I am fully aware and hope others are too. It is far better financially (in terms of security) to have both parents employed.

Financial companies have been FAR to lax on risk. Once the credit card companies were deregulated it has been an orgy of credit! Remember all the stories of dogs and children getting credit cards in the mail. I think we are going back to tighter regulations, which is a very good thing. As for SAHP getting caught in this credit tightening, well, that is just another financial ramification of deciding to stay home.

No, it's a ramification of the law not recognizing that spouses, even in common law states, DO have access to a good portion of their spouse's income under the law. It makes SAH or lower-earning parents appear to be a greater credit risk than they are by making it appear that they have no access to spousal income. This thread seems to be very anti-SAHM, but in my home it's allowed us to to have a HHI of over $2 million per year, while our HHI when we both worked was less than half of that because neither of us was available to put in the hours and travel to make my husband's now very high income. We are both financially savvy and make decisions as a unit, because we are one. There is no reason to require credit card companies to assess a SAH or lower earning spouse's risk of default in a way that ignore his or her right to the spouse's income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because marital assets are owned equally by a husband and wife, regardless of who received the pay check. This type of inquiry sets married spouses on different footing from each other if they have different earnings, even though the law otherwise generally recognized spouses as a financial unit that works collectively in its best interest, including in choosing distribution of labor, such as who works, how much, in what kind of job and with what flexibility, who takes care of childcare, family stuff, etc. Undermining the treatment of the marital couple as a single financial unit (though, again, assets to pay off credit card bills, etc. are owned equally) shifts financial power toward the person who received the pay check. People are not otherwise required to ask permission essentially to use money (marital property) that it theirs.

While this is true, it is also true that if the couple divorces, the SAHP does not have a source of income to pay any outstanding debt that may be on the CC. Divorcing spouses are not required to turn in their credit cards if their income changes. A bank is a business. They need to have proof that you have a source of income with which to pay back any money that you charge and owe to the bank. If you have two spouses and one has income and the other does not, they can open a joint account in which case, if the couple divorces, both parties are responsible for paying any outstanding debt. That way the income earning spouse can still be held responsible for any charges made on the account, by either party.

No one is arguing that you did not make the best decision for your family, but a bank only has to watch the bottom line. They are only required to extend credit to those who show they have the means to repay any debt incurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income.

"Income" is not income.

You mean two adults jointly decided what's best for their family? What terrible, terrible, lazy people.

Stop being so defensive.

Joint income should equal a joint credit card. I think this is a good decision.

Then all spouses should be required to have joint cards (not just SAH or lower-earning), and I'd be absolutely fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because marital assets are owned equally by a husband and wife, regardless of who received the pay check. This type of inquiry sets married spouses on different footing from each other if they have different earnings, even though the law otherwise generally recognized spouses as a financial unit that works collectively in its best interest, including in choosing distribution of labor, such as who works, how much, in what kind of job and with what flexibility, who takes care of childcare, family stuff, etc. Undermining the treatment of the marital couple as a single financial unit (though, again, assets to pay off credit card bills, etc. are owned equally) shifts financial power toward the person who received the pay check. People are not otherwise required to ask permission essentially to use money (marital property) that it theirs.

While this is true, it is also true that if the couple divorces, the SAHP does not have a source of income to pay any outstanding debt that may be on the CC. Divorcing spouses are not required to turn in their credit cards if their income changes. A bank is a business. They need to have proof that you have a source of income with which to pay back any money that you charge and owe to the bank. If you have two spouses and one has income and the other does not, they can open a joint account in which case, if the couple divorces, both parties are responsible for paying any outstanding debt. That way the income earning spouse can still be held responsible for any charges made on the account, by either party.

No one is arguing that you did not make the best decision for your family, but a bank only has to watch the bottom line. They are only required to extend credit to those who show they have the means to repay any debt incurred.

The banks weren't looking for this requirement to be thrust upon them. They are now obligated to assess individuals' income, it's not optional. I agree with you, let the banks decide.

[Anonymous]

Another solution could be that you declare 1/2 your HHI when getting a credit card.

If SAH (person) declares $200K and working person declares $200K they are afforded the credit line of someone with $400K income which is not right.

Also if you make so much that you can save ($2M income) then an account in the SAH (person's) name would be declared an asset and they could get a card in their name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, it's a ramification of the law not recognizing that spouses, even in common law states, DO have access to a good portion of their spouse's income under the law. It makes SAH or lower-earning parents appear to be a greater credit risk than they are by making it appear that they have no access to spousal income. This thread seems to be very anti-SAHM, but in my home it's allowed us to to have a HHI of over $2 million per year, while our HHI when we both worked was less than half of that because neither of us was available to put in the hours and travel to make my husband's now very high income. We are both financially savvy and make decisions as a unit, because we are one. There is no reason to require credit card companies to assess a SAH or lower earning spouse's risk of default in a way that ignore his or her right to the spouse's income.

I am the OP and I certainly didn't start the thread to be anti-SAHM (I'm a SAH spouse) and I haven't interpreted one post in this thread as being anti-SAHM. What posts do you feel are anti-SAHM?

I wanted to hear other viewpoints, so I thank you for sharing yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income.

"Income" is not income.

You mean two adults jointly decided what's best for their family? What terrible, terrible, lazy people.

Stop being so defensive.

Joint income should equal a joint credit card. I think this is a good decision.

Then all spouses should be required to have joint cards (not just SAH or lower-earning), and I'd be absolutely fine with that.

It seems you're missing the PP's point. It's not necessary to require it of every married person if the applicant's individual income is sufficient to prove to the card issuer s/he could repay the credit. If the applicant (whether a SAH spouse or a working spouse) does not have sufficient individual income, but the HHI is sufficient, it's required that both people contributing to that HHI be joint cardholders.

Wanting it to be required of every married person seems to be an emotional response, not a logical one. If you believe it's practical, can you explain why?

[Anonymous]

"No, it's a ramification of the law not recognizing that spouses, even in common law states, DO have access to a good portion of their spouse's income under the law. It makes SAH or lower-earning parents appear to be a greater credit risk than they are by making it appear that they have no access to spousal income. This thread seems to be very anti-SAHM, but in my home it's allowed us to to have a HHI of over $2 million per year, while our HHI when we both worked was less than half of that because neither of us was available to put in the hours and travel to make my husband's now very high income. We are both financially savvy and make decisions as a unit, because we are one. There is no reason to require credit card companies to assess a SAH or lower earning spouse's risk of default in a way that ignore his or her right to the spouse's income. "

So.....distilling all this bragging...get a credit card based on your spouse's $2 million income and not on your $0 income. I don't care, and neither do CC companies, how or what you did to arrive at that household income. I'm so glad that I qualify for my own CC based on my own income, even though it's much lower than $2 million.

[Anonymous]

"It seems you're missing the PP's point. It's not necessary to require it of every married person if the applicant's individual income is sufficient to prove to the card issuer s/he could repay the credit. If the applicant (whether a SAH spouse or a working spouse) does not have sufficient individual income, but the HHI is sufficient, it's required that both people contributing to that HHI be joint cardholders.

Wanting it to be required of every married person seems to be an emotional response, not a logical one. If you believe it's practical, can you explain why? "

Yes. I make $200K a year, as does my husband. We don't have any joint credit cards, nor do we list HHI in our individual credit card apps.

[Anonymous]

I seriously doubt that most of the credit problems in this country stem from SAHM's. It would be interesting to hear which demographic is the most likely to default on their credit card, again, I seriously doubt it is SAHM's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income.

"Income" is not income.

You mean two adults jointly decided what's best for their family? What terrible, terrible, lazy people.

Stop being so defensive.

Joint income should equal a joint credit card. I think this is a good decision.

Then all spouses should be required to have joint cards (not just SAH or lower-earning), and I'd be absolutely fine with that.

The problem with this is if a person is in an abusive relationship and they need a credit card to help get out of that relationship they can not get a credit card without the abuser's permission.

[Anonymous]

WPP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't read the law, but I could easily see where a SAHP would be upset. I would imagine that for those families that have decided that one parent stay at home, they have viewed it as a partnership where one parent brings home income and the other manages the household. I know lots of families where the SAHP manages the finances. So to tell that person that they can't get a credit card is insulting. They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income. They are allowing that person to earn the income by taking care of everything else. While not a SAHP, I do take on more at home to allow my spouse to thrive at his work. I imagine this would be multiplied if I were a SAHM.

While I do see the need to crack down on credit, I do feel that most of the responsibility falls on the credit card holder. While I can understand there may be instances where the government needs to step in to safeguard those who may not know better, I do think it is easy to go too far in the other direction. I would think the law would have a way of taking into account marital status and just look at household income.

I think the lines are getting blurred because some are valuing their worth based on whether they can get an individual credit card. the key is what this pp said that I bolded - if a couple chooses for one parent to stay home, they decided to view it as a partnership dividing up the responsibilities. therefore, you must apply for credit cards as a partnership. the point is that you have to take your choice of partnering to the end - not use it for one aspect of your life, but not the other.

Anonymous wrote: Undermining the treatment of the marital couple as a single financial unit (though, again, assets to pay off credit card bills, etc. are owned equally) shifts financial power toward the person who received the pay check.

And if you take emotions out of it, this is actually true - the parent making the money DOES have the financial power. If that parent died or became disabled or couldn't work anymore for whatever reason, the family unit would no longer have income coming in. If the SAHP died or became disabled or couldn't work anymore, the family would still have income coming in. It has nothing to do with self worth or judgment or value - it's just a fact that the WOHP is the one bringing in income to the family, so that parent should be on the hook for the credit.

[Anonymous]

Can't the provider (male or female) just order two cards?

Don't people do that for their teens and college students?

I suppose it puts the SAHP in the dependent category, however.

But I am having a hard time wrapping my head around one salary belonging to two people. If I were an institution, I would not want to be responsible for someone with foolish spending practices if there was no income to back him/her up.

b/c shit happens, folks!

[Anonymous]

I make no money and have pushed out some kids give me a loan and free shit, oh wait that sounds like something else a government program....