Enlighten me about SAHMs and credit cards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

yup

That's why my mother always encouraged me to work - especially after having kids. It's not worth it b/c you never know what tragedy is around the corner.

[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.

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.

I am the PP your replied to and have no idea why you think I am being anti-SAHM because I am SAHM. I think you are naive if you think it isn't a financial risk for creditors. Divorce and deathto do noton always work out in the SAHP favor. I am only stating if you are financially savy, you should maintain your own credit cards BEFORE marriage and maintain some financial independence because life is long.

I don't feel that creditors should hold my decision to be unemployed as a special consideration. Risk models are not a value judgement, nor should they be!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Thanks for posting this.

I know some women's groups have a problem with the Card Act for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's a valid reasons to find it problematic.

[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.

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.

Not sah but work pt wih minimal income. I was rejected for credit recently. Just applying for the amazon card's discount so I didn't really need the card but was surprised about the new law. I was only asked about income not assets. I suppose I could just split our hhi next time and claim half for myself but wouldn't that be dishonest and couldn't I get caught during credit check? Thankfully I have plenty of my own credit from before the law was enacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Thanks for posting this.

I know some women's groups have a problem with the Card Act for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's a valid reasons to find it problematic.

Yes. I also read somewhere (because wasn't this Act approved months ago) that it was agreed that it is not the responsiblity of credit card companies to protect abused persons and that private instituations should fund initiatives and receive grants for protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sah but work pt wih minimal income. I was rejected for credit recently. Just applying for the amazon card's discount so I didn't really need the card but was surprised about the new law. I was only asked about income not assets. I suppose I could just split our hhi next time and claim half for myself but wouldn't that be dishonest and couldn't I get caught during credit check? Thankfully I have plenty of my own credit from before the law was enacted.

Do you think your spouse makes enough money to qualify for the card? If not, is your income plus your spouse's income enough to qualify? If the answer is yes to either question, are you opposed to having him co-sign for your, if so, why?

It would be dishonest to put an income that's not your own down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Thanks for posting this.

I know some women's groups have a problem with the Card Act for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's a valid reasons to find it problematic.

Yes. I also read somewhere (because wasn't this Act approved months ago) that it was agreed that it is not the responsiblity of credit card companies to protect abused persons and that private instituations should fund initiatives and receive grants for protection.

Do you disagree with that? I've read information written by those who oppose the act for this reason, but I'm not an expert on it. I'm not sure that I'd disagree with the statement that nonprofit organizations directed at helping victims of abuse are more reliable than a credit institution.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry these SAHMs feel the banks aren't valuing their contributions to the family, but the reality is from a money perspective and the bank's perspective, they have no value.

SAHM's aren't entitled to credit in their own names just because what they do is virtuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here. Thanks for posting this.

I know some women's groups have a problem with the Card Act for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's a valid reasons to find it problematic.

Yes. I also read somewhere (because wasn't this Act approved months ago) that it was agreed that it is not the responsiblity of credit card companies to protect abused persons and that private instituations should fund initiatives and receive grants for protection.

Do you disagree with that? I've read information written by those who oppose the act for this reason, but I'm not an expert on it. I'm not sure that I'd disagree with the statement that nonprofit organizations directed at helping victims of abuse are more reliable than a credit institution.

From a business perspective if my business is not to protect abused people then it would not be of value to have that as part of my mission.

From a moral perspective, I think we all should help abused people.

So from a business perspective I agree. I do not want CC to take a risk that they can not cover, which in the end is covered by the govt., which in the end is paid by the taxpayer.

No law is perfect. This is one inperfection in the law and something should be put in place to mitigate the risk. There are some organizations that are good at helping abused victims and they are also the ones that brought this to the attention of the lawmakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you disagree with that? I've read information written by those who oppose the act for this reason, but I'm not an expert on it. I'm not sure that I'd disagree with the statement that nonprofit organizations directed at helping victims of abuse are more reliable than a credit institution.

From a business perspective if my business is not to protect abused people then it would not be of value to have that as part of my mission.

From a moral perspective, I think we all should help abused people.

So from a business perspective I agree. I do not want CC to take a risk that they can not cover, which in the end is covered by the govt., which in the end is paid by the taxpayer.

No law is perfect. This is one inperfection in the law and something should be put in place to mitigate the risk. There are some organizations that are good at helping abused victims and they are also the ones that brought this to the attention of the lawmakers.

Wait??? Since when is a customer's default covered by the government? that's not true. Yes, we did have the huge banks bailed out, but that's not the norm and most of the banks in this country are the smaller institutions that were NEVER bailed out. the truth is that the rest of us cover those debts - in higher interest rates and fees.

[Anonymous]

So many of the arguments/posters are putting emotion into financial decisions. Financial decisions are cold hard numbers. Pure numbers. Either you have a PAYING job or you don't. As for abused people, there are other places for them to seek help. It is not the responsibility of credit card companies to help them out of the personal hell. It is the responsibility of credit card companies to assess which customers are credit-worthy, then nickel and dime them with fees and a high interest rate in order to turn a profit to keep share holders happy and give huge bonuses to top execs. This is how we do business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you disagree with that? I've read information written by those who oppose the act for this reason, but I'm not an expert on it. I'm not sure that I'd disagree with the statement that nonprofit organizations directed at helping victims of abuse are more reliable than a credit institution.

From a business perspective if my business is not to protect abused people then it would not be of value to have that as part of my mission.

From a moral perspective, I think we all should help abused people.

So from a business perspective I agree. I do not want CC to take a risk that they can not cover, which in the end is covered by the govt., which in the end is paid by the taxpayer.

No law is perfect. This is one inperfection in the law and something should be put in place to mitigate the risk. There are some organizations that are good at helping abused victims and they are also the ones that brought this to the attention of the lawmakers.

Wait??? Since when is a customer's default covered by the government? that's not true. Yes, we did have the huge banks bailed out, but that's not the norm and most of the banks in this country are the smaller institutions that were NEVER bailed out. the truth is that the rest of us cover those debts - in higher interest rates and fees.

What? Man, you drank the kool-aid. The credit card companies want you to believe that we cover the debts but yes, in fart, they have access to Gov loans.

[Anonymous]

Should be FACT not FART. (my kindergartener would die laughing at that error.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should be FACT not FART. (my kindergartener would die laughing at that error.)

Sadly, I laughed too...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of the arguments/posters are putting emotion into financial decisions. Financial decisions are cold hard numbers. Pure numbers. Either you have a PAYING job or you don't.

agreed. can't the working parent just get a credit line with two cards?

also, this line from the article is ridiculous:
I used to be CEO of a small software consulting business and am now staying at home to take care of a toddler and first grader. If you had to pay someone to do what I do now, it would cost you at least $120,000