WDYT? SAHM protest new credit card rules

[Melissa W.]

When I got my Target card (2011), all they did was scan my debit card and ask for my id. It was really simple. The limit was low (like $500) and then it bumped up after 30 days or something like that. I don't ever remember giving my income amount or our HHI.

With brick and mortar banks, I can't get credit because of our mortgage. It puts my DTI over the limits.

[thedutchgirl]

I think a lot of the point was to STOP college kids from opening credit cards that they couldn't pay for and racking up debt.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 7:58:44 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

I think this rule is dumb. It penalizes a lot more than just SAHM's for the stupidity of others. Anyone who does not get a regular paycheck would be penalized, regardless of assets. It is as dumb as the car finance rules which rely solely on a paycheck, not on assets. Is it really a better risk decision to give a car loan to a person making $30K with no savings or someone with $300,000 in assets? I know who I would bet on.

I do not think the people who say you should have to apply with your spouse are really thinking through the reality. I know plenty of people with crap jobs whose spouses (men and women) who make most of the money. Should those people be unable to pay the roofer, the vacation, or the car repair bill because their income is 1/10th of their spouses and they can't get enough credit to cover what they are doing because they are not doing it on their income alone? Should they have to be tied to their spouse credit, even if theirs is better? Working or not working to me has little to do with your ability to pay. What does is your assets and your credit history.

This will also put college students in a bind. I can see them walking around with $1,000 in cash to pay for books or not be able to travel or buy things online because they can't have a credit card.

I see this as misguided and ineffective.

College students, and everyone else, can easily use a debit card to travel and buy things online. I've been reserving vehicles and hotel rooms and buying crap online with a debit card for years. I've never encountered anything that I can't do with my debit card or cash. People don't "need" credit cards. End of story. If they don't qualify, too bad.

[miss1991]

I am a SAHM have been for about 2 years and I have no problem getting credit, but I think that's because I had a major cc when I was working that is paid off but still open.

If I need anything I could use my DH cc and we do have money saved from when I worked.

[spiderspray]

Agree with thedutchgirl.

Also, this isn't an argument over whether or not she is properly valued as a parent blah blah blah.

Target doesn't care that you're a good mommy. As much as I value what I do for ds as a SAHM, and as much as I know my husband values my contribution, I'm smart enough to know that my actual $$ value is zero right now. I knew that walking into this arrangement and felt it was worth it.

Target also can't reasonably be expected to do a total assessment of your assets when you stroll in and ask for a credit card.

Very simple. A woman takes out a Target card based on household income and maxes it out. Husband walks out the door two days later. Target now gets to eat the cost? The divorce rate being such as it is, NO, it is NOT smart to invest in someone based on what the spouse's income is.

It's just a business decision. Not a philosophical sign of the times or something.

[chessie]

May 17, 2012 8:13:44 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

May 17, 2012 7:58:44 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

I think this rule is dumb. It penalizes a lot more than just SAHM's for the stupidity of others. Anyone who does not get a regular paycheck would be penalized, regardless of assets. It is as dumb as the car finance rules which rely solely on a paycheck, not on assets. Is it really a better risk decision to give a car loan to a person making $30K with no savings or someone with $300,000 in assets? I know who I would bet on.

I do not think the people who say you should have to apply with your spouse are really thinking through the reality. I know plenty of people with crap jobs whose spouses (men and women) who make most of the money. Should those people be unable to pay the roofer, the vacation, or the car repair bill because their income is 1/10th of their spouses and they can't get enough credit to cover what they are doing because they are not doing it on their income alone? Should they have to be tied to their spouse credit, even if theirs is better? Working or not working to me has little to do with your ability to pay. What does is your assets and your credit history.

This will also put college students in a bind. I can see them walking around with $1,000 in cash to pay for books or not be able to travel or buy things online because they can't have a credit card.

I see this as misguided and ineffective.

College students, and everyone else, can easily use a debit card to travel and buy things online. I've been reserving vehicles and hotel rooms and buying crap online with a debit card for years. I've never encountered anything that I can't do with my debit card or cash. People don't "need" credit cards. End of story. If they don't qualify, too bad.

They can get one under their parents credit as well. But its not something I would advise myself. Best advice for college kids have an income to have proof of income. This is pretty much what I did, so I didn't need my parents permission for CC's or SL's. There are plenty of options out there, prepaid cards, credit unions have special accounts for college kids, under 18 as well as lower income families to help build your credit over a period of time.

[CloudBee]

I'm on the side of the credit card companies.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 8:18:44 GMT -5 chessie said:

May 17, 2012 8:13:44 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

College students, and everyone else, can easily use a debit card to travel and buy things online. I've been reserving vehicles and hotel rooms and buying crap online with a debit card for years. I've never encountered anything that I can't do with my debit card or cash. People don't "need" credit cards. End of story. If they don't qualify, too bad.

They can get one under their parents credit as well. But its not something I would advise myself. Best advice for college kids have an income to have proof of income. This is pretty much what I did, so I didn't need my parents permission for CC's or SL's. There are plenty of options out there, prepaid cards, credit unions have special accounts for college kids, under 18 as well as lower income families to help build your credit over a period of time.

Exactly. They even have secured credit cards now that act exactly the same as a credit card and report to credit bureaus, which are excellent for building credit. Anyone can get them and after you have one for so long they will transfer it to an unsecured card.

[CloudBee]

I would also like to add that being a stay at home parent is not a job. I am tired of hearing people compare the two. It is a life decision, one that you can't put a price tag on, even if it makes financial sense for you to stay at home. Parents who work as also 24/7 parents. Just because you are at home during the 9-5 hours, doesn't mean you can now clain that you have a 24/7 job.

[raangoli]

May 16, 2012 18:09:59 GMT -5 sopsyched said:

I think of all the things women should be protesting, this is a poor choice.

This was my first thought, too. I don't see a problem with it. You have no income from which to repay the debt, therefore, no card for you!

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 6:49:10 GMT -5 vccake said:

It's calculating the risk of a person without a job so I do understand the denial -- but working individuals could just as easily lose their jobs and still, obviously, have their credit cards. Risk should ultimately take into account household income and possibly other factors.

The women opened up the age-old argument that parenting is worth xx amount of dollars. What stinks about this is that people will immediately say suck ass shit like, "she changes diapers, that isn't worth $80,000." I despise this crap rhetorical argument of trying to put a price on parenting. People will say it's worth less or more than a teaching job or a corporate job, but I do think it's worth far more but for no salary -- and a salary isn't possible, won't ever be possible, nor should it possible. But it does deserve a measure of respect.

I've now been in three 'positions' -- government contractor (10 yrs), special ed teacher (10 years) and parent (5 years). The order of pay is $$$$, $$, and zero. The zero "position," obviously tongue in cheek, makes the least and has been the most serious and challenging. It's what we talk about at night and not about my website's soft launch or my husband latest acquisition. And it just IS. There is NO paycheck coming for parenting. And that's ok...but the naysayers will always jump in and tell you how easy it is to parent (and they'll throw in daycare and teaching) and undermine the value of the 'job.'

Being a SAHP is not worth far more than anything else. It is what it is.

And drop the weird judgy, superiority crap about you talking about your SAH-ness every night and not your jobs. You just sound silly.

[imojoebunny]

May 17, 2012 8:48:53 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

May 17, 2012 6:49:10 GMT -5 vccake said:

It's calculating the risk of a person without a job so I do understand the denial -- but working individuals could just as easily lose their jobs and still, obviously, have their credit cards. Risk should ultimately take into account household income and possibly other factors.

The women opened up the age-old argument that parenting is worth xx amount of dollars. What stinks about this is that people will immediately say suck ass shit like, "she changes diapers, that isn't worth $80,000." I despise this crap rhetorical argument of trying to put a price on parenting. People will say it's worth less or more than a teaching job or a corporate job, but I do think it's worth far more but for no salary -- and a salary isn't possible, won't ever be possible, nor should it possible. But it does deserve a measure of respect.

I've now been in three 'positions' -- government contractor (10 yrs), special ed teacher (10 years) and parent (5 years). The order of pay is $$$$, $$, and zero. The zero "position," obviously tongue in cheek, makes the least and has been the most serious and challenging. It's what we talk about at night and not about my website's soft launch or my husband latest acquisition. And it just IS. There is NO paycheck coming for parenting. And that's ok...but the naysayers will always jump in and tell you how easy it is to parent (and they'll throw in daycare and teaching) and undermine the value of the 'job.'

Being a SAHP is not worth far more than anything else. It is what it is.

And drop the weird judgy, superiority crap about you talking about your SAH-ness every night and not your jobs. You just sound silly.

Ignore Spen, she is a bitter SAHM hater, who has a superiority complex about being a working mom. Not that that is an option for her, since she has $280K in student loans.

[Deleted]

[shortstax]

[daringmiss]

I do have a big problem with this rule.

I think that household income should be accounted for. Even if the couple divorces, the debt would be considered a marital debt and both people would be held responsible for it, so the credit card company would still get their money.

To deny the stay-at-home spouse a credit card, because their name isn't on the paycheck is ridiculous. I manage all the money affairs in our house and while I do not bring in a paycheck, but our household income is substantial. If I were ever denied a credit card because I personally had no salary, I would never shop in that store or apply for that card again.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 8:59:58 GMT -5 imojoebunny said:

May 17, 2012 8:48:53 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

Being a SAHP is not worth far more than anything else. It is what it is.

And drop the weird judgy, superiority crap about you talking about your SAH-ness every night and not your jobs. You just sound silly.

Ignore Spen, she is a bitter SAHM hater, who has a superiority complex about being a working mom. Not that that is an option for her, since she has $280K in student loans.

Actually, it is around 150K now. And I could pay them off tomorrow if I wanted to. It is good to be me. Keep dreaming....

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 9:32:23 GMT -5 daringmiss said:

To deny the stay-at-home spouse a credit card, because their name isn't on the paycheck is ridiculous. I manage all the money affairs in our house and while I do not bring in a paycheck, but our household income is substantial. If I were ever denied a credit card because I personally had no salary, I would never shop in that store or apply for that card again.

The store didn't make the law, Congress did. And really, you'd stop shopping at Target?

[h]

I don’t have strong feelings on this policy one way or another, but I am somewhat bothered by all the people on this thread saying “of course she should be denied, she has no money to pay back the CC company.” I suspect that many, if not most, SAHMs live in households where income is treated as joint funds. Saying that a SAHM can’t possibly have access to money seems to adopt a rather old-fashioned notion that a SAHM’s has nothing unless her husband gives her an allowance. That is not how most households seem to work. In community property states, a SAHM would even have a legal claim to half her husbands’ income. Why the pervasive belief that SAHM’s have no money.

[chessie]

May 17, 2012 9:35:03 GMT -5 @notquiteblushing said:

May 17, 2012 9:32:23 GMT -5 daringmiss said:

To deny the stay-at-home spouse a credit card, because their name isn't on the paycheck is ridiculous. I manage all the money affairs in our house and while I do not bring in a paycheck, but our household income is substantial. If I were ever denied a credit card because I personally had no salary, I would never shop in that store or apply for that card again.

The store didn't make the law, Congress did. And really, you'd stop shopping at Target?

Guess you will be not shopping at a quite a few stores, all follow same rule. I don't think its a huge issue to have the working spouse know about your credit card you want to open, if it is I guess there are other issues in your relationship. As a HH that has two working spouses- each of us know about what we do debt wise, or money wise, so I wouldn't treat it any differently, that is just my household. The other option you can still use cash I can see this debate leading into pages and pages in this thread...bottom line SAHP's don't bring in any income, simple as that.

[jaylea]

I think this makes perfect sense. If you have no income, you have no income.

This is not a value judgment on the worthiness of what you're doing, be it SAHM, SAHW, Volunteer vs. working for pay, etc. It's just a simple matter of not extending credit to individuals who have no income.

[Deleted]

So, in theory, it's okay to stay at home and use your husband's income to pay your credit card bill, but it's not okay to actually have him listed as a user on the credit card?

Interesting.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, and I have a ton of respect for SAHparents, but to me, saying that your job is *worth* such and such sum of dollars is bullshit.

What matters is what you get paid, in dollars, into your account. If you don't get paid, and you can't prove that you have a way to pay for your purchases, why on earth should anyone give you a loan or a credit card? You ask me, it would be stupid of them to do so. Isn't that basically how we got into is housing mess, anyway - people getting loans they couldn't afford to pay back?

You ask me, the credit card companies are doing a smart thing here.

[chessie]

May 17, 2012 10:00:39 GMT -5 @fivedogs said:

May 17, 2012 9:37:30 GMT -5 h said:

I suspect that many, if not most, SAHMs live in households where income is treated as joint funds.

Then get a "joint" card.

This! Call the CC company up and have them add your spouse, easy as that.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 10:19:14 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 10:00:39 GMT -5 @fivedogs said:

Then get a "joint" card.

Why do I need to get a "joint" card based upon income that is legally mine but my husband can get one without me, for the same income that is legally mine? We are both on the hook for the debt either way.

Isn't that the point though? If you're both on the hook for the debt and you get divorced, even if the debt is split between the two of you, how is the SAHP going to pay the bill?

[megs193]

May 17, 2012 10:19:14 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 10:00:39 GMT -5 @fivedogs said:

Then get a "joint" card.

Why do I need to get a "joint" card based upon income that is legally mine but my husband can get one without me, for the same income that is legally mine? We are both on the hook for the debt either way.

The problem is that if you and your husband get divorced he still has his high paying job and you have to go out and find one which can be tough given the economy and the fact that you may have been out of your field for awhile. The amount you would get in alimony would presumably be a lot less than what he gets to keep every month and half the debt could be given to you. The credit card companies obviously have to protect themselves from this situation.

I am a SAHM and I have no problem with this rule. My DH and I have a joint credit card that we pay off each month. My only concern is for women in a controlling relationship. This seems like it could be one more way for an abusive man to control his wife.

[phunluvin82]

May 16, 2012 19:19:18 GMT -5 minniemouse said:

Never thought about how that rule affects sahp....i figured it was to prevent college students with no income from getting a bunch of cc's they couldnt pay back.

Agreed. It's unfortunate that the rule is affecting SAHM's who want to be able to get credit based on HHI, but I don't think that was what was intended with the rule.

I think the rule was created mainly for 18 yr olds racking up more debt than they ever had any business taking out in the first place. There was an uproar over the problem, complete with stories of early 20 somethings committing suicide over debt problems (I saw a piece on PBS a while back) and I think they were compelled to act. I think, overall, the rule is protecting more people (from themselves, granted) than it's hurting.

ETA: spelling mistakes

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 10:30:15 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 10:26:10 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

Isn't that the point though? If you're both on the hook for the debt and you get divorced, even if the debt is split between the two of you, how is the SAHP going to pay the bill?

Again, since I am on the hook too, why doesn't he need my permission?

Permission really has nothing to do with the law. Obviously some SAHP's feel like this new law is forcing them to get "permission" from the working spouse in the form of a joint credit card.

In reality, this new law simply says, if you don't work, you don't get a card. The end result being that SAHP's are excluded from having their very own credit card all to themselves.

Not all states are community property states. In those states, if you were to get divorced, you wouldn't have a job, and you would still have a full credit card bill.

It's not the job of credit card companies to issue a massive application so they can study and review the dynamics of your household income.

If fail to see why it's so important that a SAHP have their very own private credit card? Should we have special credit card laws so the SAHP's aren't offended?

[jaylea]

May 17, 2012 10:30:15 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 10:26:10 GMT -5 papiercherri said:

Isn't that the point though? If you're both on the hook for the debt and you get divorced, even if the debt is split between the two of you, how is the SAHP going to pay the bill?

Again, since I am on the hook too, why doesn't he need my permission?

Because, following a divorce, he already has a job with income lined up, while the SAHP would have to find one.

[formerlyak]

May 17, 2012 9:32:23 GMT -5 daringmiss said:

I think that household income should be accounted for. Even if the couple divorces, the debt would be considered a marital debt and both people would be held responsible for it, so the credit card company would still get their money.

Not necessarily true about marital debt. It depends on the divorce laws of your state.

[jaylea]

May 17, 2012 11:00:20 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 10:50:14 GMT -5 jaylea said:

Because, following a divorce, he already has a job with income lined up, while the SAHP would have to find one.

Let's follow your "divorce and destitution" argument through: He can stick me with debt I don't know about and can't pay (because little old SAHM me has no earning capacity). However, I can't stick him with debt he doesn't know about and can't pay (since the credit card was granted upon his permanent and never failing income stream).

Why am I the one who needs permission (ie. joint card)?

Because, again, credit cards are credit extended based upon the presumed ability to pay it back in the future. If you have a verified source of income through a job, the expectation is that this earning power will remain consistent. Sure, anyone could lose a job - but if the assumption is that there will be no continuance in employment for everyone, then credit should be done away with altogether.

If you have no job, with no consistent, steady income of your own, then in the event of a divorce they cannot predict what your income will be, or when you will begin receiving it. You are currently dependent on your husband's income. If the husband is removed from the equation, how can they estimate your future income?

ETA: On a Federal law level, I would have to assume that this argument has been thoroughly vetted. At the end of the day, if you are listed as a dependent on your household's income tax form (and you are, if you have no income), then a Federal law requiring consent of the person whose income you are dependent on when you are applying for credit just makes sense to me.