Enlighten me about SAHMs and credit cards
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
In an attempt to protect those who cannot afford it from acquiring too much debt, the Card Act requires credit card issuers to evaluate an
application based on the individual applicant's household info and not HHI. Many stay-at-home parents are angry abut this and think it devalues the worth of a SAHP's work. I don't understand this angle, so I'm asking (non-bitchily, non-snarkily, not trying to start a SAH debate) that someone enlighten me and help me understand why. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/16/pf/credit-cards-stay-at-home-moms/ A person who is against this law was quoted in the story as saying:
Is this not mixing two separate issues? Yes, being a SAHM is worthwhile and important, but what does that have to do with demonstrating income on a credit application? I applied for the credit cards I have before this law was enacted, so my HHI was able to get me approved for the cards without having my spouse co-sign for me. My income of $0 would not have been enough. I know that now, it wouldn't be as easy, and although it's an extra hassle, it makes sense to me. I don't find relying on my spouse's income to be demeaning so I don't find needing to have him co-sign a credit application for me demeaning. Another quote from the article:
|
Anonymous
| 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. |
Anonymous
Only true in community property states. |
Anonymous
| SAHM here. Heard about this on the radio yesterday. Given the MASSIVE credit bubble we have (had), I am happy they are clamping down on credit. I have credit from before we were married which I have kept up (not joint). McCall should have thought about this before deciding to be a SAHM. Sorry but I side with financial institutions, if you cannot provide an income; you won't qualify for a credit card. She will have to apply for a joint credit line. |
Anonymous
Yes, though most income received in common law states also becomes martial property. SAH parents could simply provide information about finances available in marital assets, (joint accounts, joint investment accounts, etc.). And, spouses get equitable distribution in common law states as well in the event of death or divorce, so there's financial stability through tht as well. The new law functions as though spouses have no legal rights to their spouse's income, and that's simply not the case, in any jurisdiction. |
Anonymous
| I am not a SAHM, I work and have my own income (and thus, credit) yet, when I apply for credit I list my HHI and my spouse info...who shouldn't a SAHM be able to do the same? |
Anonymous
SAHM can use assets to receive credit cards. For example, if you have $200K equity in your home you can claim $100K as equity and get a credit card. When you do not have assets you can only claim income. Income is not "marital property" until it becomes an asset. So if you H is a jerk and he has his pay check go into a savings account in his name only and gives you an "allowance" to run the family he has full rights to the money in his account and you have no rights to that money - unless you file for divorce, then you have a right to 1/2. But he could "shelter" that money or spend it and there is nothing you can do about it. A person with $0 income and $0 assets can not get a credit card. This makes sense to a credit card company because if you get divorced and you truly have no income they are at risk of default. Companies have the right to protect their interests. A SAHM could ask the husband to create an account in her name and create a credit score that allows her to have a credit card. That make sense. Here is my problem - I don't think the law goes far enough. A H can get a credit card based on his income - run up the debt - divorce and the wife is strapped with 1/2 the debt. I think the law needs to protect SAHM more and that debt should not be her responsiblity. |
Anonymous
Why would you list your HHI? I list only my income. It's not an application for a joint card. |
Anonymous
|
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. |
Anonymous
|
They have "income" in that they made a decision that their partner would earn the income.
"Income" is not income. |
Anonymous
You mean two adults jointly decided what's best for their family? What terrible, terrible, lazy people. |
Anonymous
I didn't see the PP's post as being mean. I don't work, my spouse does, we use the money as HHI (I actually manage the finances, i doubt he knows the passwords to the bank accounts) but I'm not offended that credit card applications wouldn't want to approve me because I don't have income that I earn. |
Anonymous
Stop being so left brained. Objectively, money is money. Either someone has a salary, or they don't. It's not a character judgment, it's a credit card application. |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
Stop being so defensive. Joint income should equal a joint credit card. I think this is a good decision. |