C&P from MM: WDYT? SAHP & credit cards

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 8:55:56 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Vanessa, I don't agree that this treats people like children. I think it sets of reasonable checks and balances on greedy ass banks.

These women might be bitching about not having a target card in their very own little name but it's also keeping the bank Target uses from giving housewives the ability to rack up a shitton of debt they won't be able to pay off when their husband kicks the bucket or they leave his troll ass after catching him in bed with another woman.

I'm not sure how we ended up in a society that feels a credit card is absolutely necessary to everyday life that we're throwing hissy fits when banks can't give people who don't have a reliable source of income one all by their little lonesome.

Fair enough, I see your point. I agree that CCs are not a right. My sister and BIL did away with them 10 years ago and it's really better for them. I think this lady's hissy fit is unwarranted, too.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 9:04:16 GMT -5 ECB said:

May 17, 2012 8:55:56 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Vanessa, I don't agree that this treats people like children. I think it sets of reasonable checks and balances on greedy ass banks.

I agree. I can remember how in college, banks would flood students mailboxes w/ CC offers. DH never took advantage of this (took his dads advice), but when he graduated and GOT A JOB, suddenly the only thing he would qualify for was a $500 secured card.

That's messed up! College students w/ no income??? HERE_ take a CC. A new graduate w/ an income? Um, no, you can't ge4t a card.

I think this is part of the problem our country has w/ debt!

I guess I didn't state my point well. I think some regulation is good, but you can't regulate away bad decisions. That can't be the only solution, and education has to be part of it.

[msmerymac]

May 17, 2012 9:27:46 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 9:19:44 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

... people with little or no income? How is this any different?

Because, as I mentioned before, I don't have "little or no income." Until we are separated, I have a community property interest in the income of a certain psychiatrist. And he has a community property interest in the income of a certain contract attorney. Either of our wages can be garnished for debts of the community. If the credit card company can come after me for that money (regardless of who earned it), why can't they also give me credit based upon it?

I am not arguing that raising my daughter is a valuable source of income, puppies or rainbows which entitle me to credit. I am arguing that I have an income stream until DH quits or is fired, just like he does. If that income is sufficient guarantee for someone to extend him credit, then it should be grounds for me too.

But if your money is so intertwined already (what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine), why does it matter if you have a credit card solely in your name, or whether you're both on the account?

I get sensitive about things like financial independence, but at the same time, my husband and I are a financial team. So I don't see getting a joint credit card or having him add me as an authorized user as "asking permission."

[pescalita]

May 17, 2012 10:19:28 GMT -5 jaylea said:

May 17, 2012 10:14:32 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Let me reiterate: His income belongs to me as much as it belongs to him. Not because he loves me. Not because he is a nice guy. But because legally it is also my income. And it will belong to me tomorrow, and the next day...

And, under the existing law referenced in the article, you are entitled to a joint credit card, to be paid with this joint income.

I think this is still reasonable. Sure, CA law may entitle all spouses to 1/2 of the household income, but as a national company, Target's policy seems reasonable.

I'm kind of here. I get sonrisa's point, and I think policies like this undercut the idea of community property in a way that devalues women from a purely business perspective. But I can't get around why you're taking out individual credit if all your property is community.

Of course, I guess there isn't really individual credit? The husband would be on the hook for it anyway right?

[emmybean]

So, do we want to be independent or do we want to be judged based off our partners income/ credit?

Again, I say horseshit.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 11:22:08 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

But if your money is so intertwined already (what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine), why does it matter if you have a credit card solely in your name, or whether you're both on the account?

I get sensitive about things like financial independence, but at the same time, my husband and I are a financial team. So I don't see getting a joint credit card or having him add me as an authorized user as "asking permission."

See, this is where I am.

I don't understand why some women are a-okay with tying up their finances, personal income, etc all up in their husband's business but then are all ZOMG, I MUST HAVE MY OWN CREDIT CARD!!

Of course, this doesn't even prevent a SAHM from keeping the credit card she had before she became a SAHM. So it's not like someone is making a blanket rule that SAHMs cannot have a credit card and/or have to give one up the minute they go on maternity leave.

[ttt]

May 17, 2012 11:29:15 GMT -5 emmybean said:

So, do we want to be independent or do we want to be judged based off our partners income/ credit?

Again, I say horseshit.

It's not about being judged or being independent. It's about whether my husband's income should be taken into account in considering whether or not I'm likely to pay back my credit card debt.

Unless a divorce is pending (and in which case, I think a judge would be awarding alimony), the answer is generally yes.

[ttt]

May 17, 2012 8:52:30 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

I SAH and I can't summon the outrage for this, as long as there is a way for me to easily get said cc when I need it (just a matter of registering it jointly?).

But overall, the treating people like children thing is what annoys me. Instead of enacting law after law to protect people from themselves because they have no grasp of personal finance, why not actually teach this when they are in high school? I graduated in the mid-90's, there was nothing like this at the time. I think some sort of personal finance class should be a req. to graduation -- which includes learning about credit cards, bills, checking, loans, insurance, etc.

Do you honestly think the credit card companies and banks WANT people to be educated about personal finance? I guarantee you that they would fight tooth and nail (if they haven't done it already) to prevent these classes from happening or being required in schools.

They make millions - no, billions - off of the ignorance of consumers.

[Deleted]

I'm actually arguing that it should cut both ways: both spouses should be appraised of any credit or debt regardless of who earns the income. However, if either can get it independently, why not both?


For everyone? Or just in a community property/one spouse stays at home and one works situation? Because for us, hell no do I want to be responsible for my H's cc debt and he should not be responsible for mine--for our separate cards.

[caden]

If I were denied I'd be annoyed that the bank wasn't looking at our joint/household income. But as long as I could be listed jointly it's NBD. If it's family income, shouldn't the credit cards be for the whole family too?

My eyes almost rolled out of my head at this:

May 17, 2012 8:38:08 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

"Just because I don't get a direct paycheck for [my work], doesn't mean it's not worthwhile work that I'm doing."

Just b/c you are doing worthwhile work doesn't mean you're entitled to be lent money.

[Deleted]

team Habbsies on this one. She DOESNT have an income and therefore no way to independently pay the bill.
This bill is fantastic - the last thing the US (or Canada) needs is people with credit cards they have no way of paying.

[msmerymac]

May 17, 2012 11:37:44 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

May 17, 2012 11:22:08 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

But if your money is so intertwined already (what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine), why does it matter if you have a credit card solely in your name, or whether you're both on the account?

I get sensitive about things like financial independence, but at the same time, my husband and I are a financial team. So I don't see getting a joint credit card or having him add me as an authorized user as "asking permission."

See, this is where I am.

I don't understand why some women are a-okay with tying up their finances, personal income, etc all up in their husband's business but then are all ZOMG, I MUST HAVE MY OWN CREDIT CARD!!

Of course, this doesn't even prevent a SAHM from keeping the credit card she had before she became a SAHM. So it's not like someone is making a blanket rule that SAHMs cannot have a credit card and/or have to give one up the minute they go on maternity leave.

I'm so glad you (and some other SAHMs) are on this page. When I read it I was afraid of having an unpopular opinion.

Also, the woman was denied a card for Target. You know what I buy at Target? Stuff for my house. Toiletries, cleaning supplies, pet supplies. Therefore, I almost always pay for my purchases at Target out of the joint account, which is for... wait for it... household and mutual expenses.

My H and I happen to have separate accounts, but we each contribute to a joint account. Separate accounts are for personal expenses. It's been working for us. Obviously, a SAHP probably will not have a separate account, or if they do, it's for money transferred over from a joint account or spouses account. I mean, I know couples who split all expenses 50/50, but for obvious reasons, that doesn't work when you MAKE NO MONEY.

Which brings me to this:

May 17, 2012 11:29:15 GMT -5 emmybean said:

So, do we want to be independent or do we want to be judged based off our partners income/ credit?

Again, I say horseshit.

I can't believe I'm arguing on the other side of this (I do have issues with financial independence and I fully believe financial abuse is one reason many SAHM/SAHW stay married to douchebags). But if you are a SAHP, you do not have financial independence, barring a trust fund or inheritance. AND THAT'S USUALLY OKAY. You can't be a SAHP by yourself. If one parent stays at home, it's as a joint partnership with the other parent. The other parent has decided to work for income to support the family financially, which allows the other parent to support the family in non-income-generating ways. SAHP don't exist in a bubble. They have and need support. And in turn are supporting the working-outside-the-home parent.

I don't see anything wrong with this kind of partnership IF it is something both people want and IF you find a way to make to work by being transparent about finances, making budgets, and avoiding guilt.

This might be flameworthy, but it sounds like some women in the article might be feeling guilt over not contributing financially (especially the pretentious one who used to make 6 figures). I get it. Even though I work, my husband makes more than me, and I sometimes feel bad that he pays for more stuff. You have to find a way to let go and accept it.

[basilosaurus]

So if I'm making a nice large salary, and I deposit our savings into a joint account, I'm not financially independent because it's not a trust fund or inheritance?

I'm not about to go "I don't have a job, I have a husband" like one mil spouse I know, but I regularly get a chunk of H's paycheck in my account every pay period b/c I'm responsible for all bills. I don't see rent as different than a credit card wrt my ability to pay.

[ttt]

May 17, 2012 12:44:42 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

So if I'm making a nice large salary, and I deposit our savings into a joint account, I'm not financially independent because it's not a trust fund or inheritance?
.

If you're making a nice large salary, you're financially independent regardless of what you do with it.

[emmybean]

May 17, 2012 12:29:32 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

May 17, 2012 11:37:44 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

See, this is where I am.

I don't understand why some women are a-okay with tying up their finances, personal income, etc all up in their husband's business but then are all ZOMG, I MUST HAVE MY OWN CREDIT CARD!!

Of course, this doesn't even prevent a SAHM from keeping the credit card she had before she became a SAHM. So it's not like someone is making a blanket rule that SAHMs cannot have a credit card and/or have to give one up the minute they go on maternity leave.

I'm so glad you (and some other SAHMs) are on this page. When I read it I was afraid of having an unpopular opinion.

Also, the woman was denied a card for Target. You know what I buy at Target? Stuff for my house. Toiletries, cleaning supplies, pet supplies. Therefore, I almost always pay for my purchases at Target out of the joint account, which is for... wait for it... household and mutual expenses.

My H and I happen to have separate accounts, but we each contribute to a joint account. Separate accounts are for personal expenses. It's been working for us. Obviously, a SAHP probably will not have a separate account, or if they do, it's for money transferred over from a joint account or spouses account. I mean, I know couples who split all expenses 50/50, but for obvious reasons, that doesn't work when you MAKE NO MONEY.

Which brings me to this:

May 17, 2012 11:29:15 GMT -5 emmybean said:

So, do we want to be independent or do we want to be judged based off our partners income/ credit?

Again, I say horseshit.

I can't believe I'm arguing on the other side of this (I do have issues with financial independence and I fully believe financial abuse is one reason many SAHM/SAHW stay married to douchebags). But if you are a SAHP, you do not have financial independence, barring a trust fund or inheritance. AND THAT'S USUALLY OKAY. You can't be a SAHP by yourself. If one parent stays at home, it's as a joint partnership with the other parent. The other parent has decided to work for income to support the family financially, which allows the other parent to support the family in non-income-generating ways. SAHP don't exist in a bubble. They have and need support. And in turn are supporting the working-outside-the-home parent.

I don't see anything wrong with this kind of partnership IF it is something both people want and IF you find a way to make to work by being transparent about finances, making budgets, and avoiding guilt.

This might be flameworthy, but it sounds like some women in the article might be feeling guilt over not contributing financially (especially the pretentious one who used to make 6 figures). I get it. Even though I work, my husband makes more than me, and I sometimes feel bad that he pays for more stuff. You have to find a way to let go and accept it.

I am in no way arguing against SAHP. Im simply stating that if you CHOOSE to SAH, you give up your financial independence. Which is fine, so long as everyone in your family is on the same page with it. And you don't expect creditors to loan you money when you have no income.

[basilosaurus]

May 17, 2012 12:45:54 GMT -5 ttt said:

May 17, 2012 12:44:42 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

So if I'm making a nice large salary, and I deposit our savings into a joint account, I'm not financially independent because it's not a trust fund or inheritance?
.

If you're making a nice large salary, you're financially independent regardless of what you do with it.

I should clarify, I made that money before becoming a SAHM. So, now I have no income, should I still be denied?

I'm mostly referencing mery's comment that you are only financially independent with a trust fund or inheritance. At least on MM there are women who bank their salary in anticipation of staying at home.

[emmybean]

May 17, 2012 13:09:25 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Sonrisa's point was that you do have income. Half of your husband's. If you are in a community property state and don't have a pre-nup or some other encumbrance on his income.

But you don't. Even if you are legally entitled to half his income, it doesn't mean you would actually have it if shit went down. If you are sharing all finances, you have no reason for an individual credit account.

[msmerymac]

May 17, 2012 13:08:04 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

May 17, 2012 12:45:54 GMT -5 ttt said:

If you're making a nice large salary, you're financially independent regardless of what you do with it.

I should clarify, I made that money before becoming a SAHM. So, now I have no income, should I still be denied?

I'm mostly referencing mery's comment that you are only financially independent with a trust fund or inheritance. At least on MM there are women who bank their salary in anticipation of staying at home.

Well, that would be some kind of income. Either capital gains from investments or savings, rather than salary.

But there are also many loans that you can only get if you meet certain salary requirements. So if you get your money elsewhere (SS, disability check, capital gains) you might not qualify.

[MrsDL]

Surprise surprise I'm not in favor of the government trying to save us from ourselves once again. So, I don't really agree with this. If a SAHM has good credit (which has shown to be more important than salary in terms of both racking-up debt and liklihood to pay debt) and there is household income, she should be considered for the credit card imo.

[emmybean]

May 17, 2012 14:34:05 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 17, 2012 13:17:44 GMT -5 emmybean said:

But you don't. Even if you are legally entitled to half his income, it doesn't mean you would actually have it if shit went down. If you are sharing all finances, you have no reason for an individual credit account.

But I do. Until a legal separation any money he earns I earn as part of the community.

Most SAHMs stay at home without an income for only a few years and then return to the work force. If they remain unemployed for an extended time it is likely either (a) the marriage has ample assets and does not need a second income to cover their lifestyle or (b) they are broke and wouldn't qualify for credit anyways.

"When shit goes down" is a crappy argument straw man argument (pun intended). "When shit goes down" nobody has an income. People get ill, injured, fired or downsized all the time. People get judgments entered against them that garnish their wages and restrict other creditors from collecting. People become judgment proof. No one is guaranteed an income. Divorce during the short window when one spouse isn't working is less common than the other reasons for loss of income.

Yes, it's a crappy straw an argument to say that you are far more likely to be without income that may be "rightfully yours" if anything were to happen to him or your relationship. Who the money belongs to is besides the point. The only control of that money in any real sense is what he allows you to have over it. Why on earth should a creditor have faith in your ability to continue to have over said income, without any input from said person?

Which leads back to the question: if everything is shared, what is at all reasonable to require an separate, independent account?

[bumppkathleen]

I agree with Sonrisa w/r/t CA and other community property states, but I think that's not the central point because most states aren't.

I also don't see how it's a woman's rights issue. Contextualizing it like that assumes the woman is the one who stays home and has no independent income.

[bumppkathleen]

May 17, 2012 13:17:44 GMT -5 emmybean said:

May 17, 2012 13:09:25 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Sonrisa's point was that you do have income. Half of your husband's. If you are in a community property state and don't have a pre-nup or some other encumbrance on his income.

But you don't. Even if you are legally entitled to half his income, it doesn't mean you would actually have it if shit went down. If you are sharing all finances, you have no reason for an individual credit account.

I don't understand this. Of course the SAHS is entitled to half the income in a community property state. The source of income may dry up after legal separation but (s)he is still entitled to half the savings and other assets. And the likelihood of the income ending are no greater w/r/t divorce than w/r/t job loss.*

*Annnnnnd I just got what Sonrisa was getting at on ML. Late to the game.

[emmybean]

May 17, 2012 15:25:30 GMT -5 @bumppkathleen said:

May 17, 2012 13:17:44 GMT -5 emmybean said:

But you don't. Even if you are legally entitled to half his income, it doesn't mean you would actually have it if shit went down. If you are sharing all finances, you have no reason for an individual credit account.

I don't understand this. Of course the SAHS is entitled to half the income in a community property state. The source of income may dry up after legal separation but (s)he is still entitled to half the savings and other assets. And the likelihood of the income ending are no greater w/r/t divorce than w/r/t job loss.*

*Annnnnnd I just got what Sonrisa was getting at on ML. Late to the game.

Yes it is. Asking to put faith in a 3rd party's income is more risky---how could it not be?

[basilosaurus]

May 17, 2012 15:31:37 GMT -5 emmybean said:

Yes it is. Asking to put faith in a 3rd party's income is more risky---how could it not be?

More risky than putting faith in a 3rd parties decision to keep you employed?

When I look at things that would prevent my ability to pay a bill, husband running off and taking more than half seems far far less likely than husband being laid off. So, from a risk assessment POV, I'm fine with considering HHI instead of personal.

[Deleted]

Good, then we'll just start giving credit cards to anyone who doesn't have a job provided they live in a household where income is coming in. 20 year old kids whose parents are paying for college, your mooch of a brother who stays in your basement, sah long term gf's, etc.

I'm really not sure why it's so shocking that we don't give individual credit cards to people who don't have an individual incomes.

[wawa]

I think in a state where both spouses are on the hook for the debts of the other, it should be required for both spouses to sign off on the debt to begin with. So CA should have only joint accounts for married people.

That sounds fair.

[emmybean]

May 17, 2012 15:43:08 GMT -5 wawa said:

I think in a state where both spouses are on the hook for the debts of the other, it should be required for both spouses to sign off on the debt to begin with. So CA should have only joint accounts for married people.

That sounds fair.

Exactly.

If Both parties are on the hook for the debt. Both should have a say on if it is given in the first place. You cannot have t both ways.