SAHMs & SAHDs can't get credit cards now?

[DarlaS]

Yes there are some people, both men and women, who don't have a clue as to the proper way to use credit (and money) wisely. But do not close out an entire segment of the population as unworthy just because their jobs are unpaid.

 

:iagree:

 

And some of them even have paying jobs. :leaving:

[bcnlvr]

Credit cards yes, but not credit in general.

 

We seem to be talking about two different aspects of the same thing. I'm seeing the poor SAHM with a limited income who has to pay a higher deposit or insurance premium just because she has not credit. How can she plan to buy a new car with the insurance money, if she can't afford to pay the higher premiums?

 

You are discussing life without credit cards.

 

I'll agree one can live life without credit cards. But it is extremely difficult and very expensive to live life without credit. This regulation in question is not just targeting credit cards. It is targeting all credit in general.

 

I agree that we are talking two different things here. However, I argue that one can build credit without CCs. I have done this. The title of the thread was "SAHMs & SAHDs can't get credit cards now?" and that what my comments were about specifically. :)

[Tigger]

Okay....so stepping back for a moment, I think the thread is going way off into many areas not even effected by the CARD Act. It doesn't effect mortgages, car loans, bank accounts, debit cards, or any other loan/debt other than credit cards (major and store). I don't think we necessarily need this type of regulation, but clearly the discussion is veering off into things not even an issue with the regulation.

[5kidsforME]

 

As such we have thought way ahead to the financial protection of ourselves and our children if the worst were to happen. Part of that protection is having credit in our own names.

 

 

 

Sorry, but this is a load of crap. I understand that when a person in the military is deployed that you are thinking they may not come back. You may get that awful call. BUT to assume that those of us with spouses not in the military do not think ahead for our financial protection is WRONG. DH and I have planned for the worst case scenario. We do not use credit now, so there is no need for me to use credit if he dies.

[Parrothead]

I agree that we are talking two different things here. However, I argue that one can build credit without CCs. I have done this. The title of the thread was "SAHMs & SAHDs can't get credit cards now?" and that what my comments were about specifically. :)

Yes, I agree. But one cannot build an optimal credit score/rating without a credit card as 60% of one's credit card history/utilization makes up ones credit score. I could have a credit score of 620, get a mortgage and never have my score rise above 680ish because I have no more credit history than the mortgage.

 

Then when I call the oil company to have an account for winter heating oil I'm told my credit is not good enough for that. Yes, I have a great history with credit, but I have a suckish score because I have a thin file.

 

Having one major credit card in good standing will alter this scenario to the point that having the card and the mortgage will likely raise my score to the mid 700 within 2 years.

[Parrothead]

Sorry, but this is a load of crap. I understand that when a person in the military is deployed that you are thinking they may not come back. You may get that awful call. BUT to assume that those of us with spouses not in the military do not think ahead for our financial protection is WRONG. DH and I have planned for the worst case scenario. We do not use credit now, so there is no need for me to use credit if he dies.

Okay, I stand corrected. But you will have to admit there are many women who have their head in the sand when it comes to the death of their spouse. Also you may not realize it but you do use credit now and will have to use it in the future unless you live completely off the grid with no utilities or insurance of any kind.

 

I'm coming from a position that it is in my face every single day. I get up every morning and wonder if today is the day some stupid a$$hole is going to shoot dh dead before lunch.

 

FTR: Dh is not military.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Parrothead

[Mrs Mungo]

Sorry, but this is a load of crap. I understand that when a person in the military is deployed that you are thinking they may not come back. You may get that awful call. BUT to assume that those of us with spouses not in the military do not think ahead for our financial protection is WRONG. DH and I have planned for the worst case scenario. We do not use credit now, so there is no need for me to use credit if he dies.

 

1. We don't get a call. That never happens. Military moms and spouses (and perspective moms and spouses) need to know that.

 

2. You might not need a cc if your spouse dies. But, you will need *credit* for everything from buying a car to having a bank account to having heat. Having a cc in one's name is a relatively easy way for a SAHP to build credit in their name. That is what we are saying.

[5kidsforME]

1. We don't get a call. That never happens. Military moms and spouses (and perspective moms and spouses) need to know that.

 

2. You might not need a cc if your spouse dies. But, you will need *credit* for everything from buying a car to having a bank account to having heat. Having a cc in one's name is a relatively easy way for a SAHP to build credit in their name. That is what we are saying.

 

 

We already have a bank account in our name. We buy our cars with cash now so, no, I don't need credit. I am not worried about heat, because my dh's credit is crap and what he had to do is pay up front, a certain amount that was than applied to the last month of the year.

 

My response actually was more in response to the fact that only military spouses think to protect their financial future. Chuki already addressed that part.

[cdrumm4448]

Don't use credit, don't need a credit card. Haven't had one for many years. We pay cash for cars, save for unexpected expenses, and are buying our house via private contract. The whole credit industry is a scam. They can kiss my butt

 

:D I just thought the last sentence was really funny.

[Mrs Mungo]

We already have a bank account in our name. We buy our cars with cash now so, no, I don't need credit. I am not worried about heat, because my dh's credit is crap and what he had to do is pay up front, a certain amount that was than applied to the last month of the year.

 

Like I said, so you have a bank account in your name. How does this apply to *everyone else*?

 

My response actually was more in response to the fact that only military spouses think to protect their financial future. Chuki already addressed that part.

 

Chucki's dh is not military. And I took it to read that we are more likely to think about it, not that nobody else thinks about it.

[cdrumm4448]

it does not mean I deserve credit for his income - I do not do his work and I do not have his expertise.

If he did not have me, he would not have a family - but he sure would have his job and his income. We choose to divide labor our way - but I feel no sense of entitlement, and certainly I don't deserve credit for anything he accomplishes.

 

This sentiment reminds me of my FIL's recent comment regarding wives being awarded a portion of their husband's 401K earnings upon divorce. My FIL believes he earned the money, and he invested it for his retirement. He believes his wife didn't earn it, doesn't view their marriage as a financial partnership, and she doesn't deserve to partake in it if they divorce. I attempted to set him straight, but he's an old farmer and won't change his views. I'm just glad I'm not married to him.

[TexasRachel]

I got one a few weeks ago. It asked for household income, not personal income.

 

:iagree: I got one with a larger than I like limit recently from amazon. Maybe they just know how much I spend there, but they did ask for household income.

[5kidsforME]

Like I said, so you have a bank account in your name. How does this apply to *everyone else*?

 

 

This is what you said:

 

 

 

2. You might not need a cc if your spouse dies. But, you will need *credit* for everything from buying a car to having a bank account to having heat. Having a cc in one's name is a relatively easy way for a SAHP to build credit in their name. That is what we are saying.

 

I was answering for myself.

[5kidsforME]

Okay, I stand corrected. But you will have to admit there are many women who have their head in the sand when it comes to the death of their spouse. Also you may not realize it but you do use credit now and will have to use it in the future unless you live completely off the grid with no utilities or insurance of any kind.

 

I'm coming from a position that it is in my face every single day. I get up every morning and wonder if today is the day some stupid a$$hole is going to shoot dh dead before lunch.

 

FTR: Dh is not military.

 

Dh has terrible credit and yet he was still able to get a cell plan and we have all of our utlities. We had to take a few extra steps and pay ahead on some things but we are covered.

 

I understand that some of you have dh's leave for the day (month, months etc) and it is a reality that they may not come home. I am sure that is hard. My reason for posting to you though was because just because my dh does not have a high risk job does not mean we haven't planned for the worst case scenario.

 

I think it is a bit ironic that you are defending the right for SAH's to be able to get credit that is not tied to their spouse and in the next breath saying that a lot fo SAHM's bury their head in the sand about these things. Maybe that is why the CC companies don't like to extend credit to them than.

[cdrumm4448]

I think something needs to be clarified about what we are talking about here: this is a federal law that says banks may NOT consider household income in their decisions to extend credit. Banks and other creditors have NEVER been required to consider household income, or to support SAHMs in that way, but many, through the years, have found it good business sense to do so.

 

:iagree:The decision to utilize credit must be left to the individual, not the federal government.

[Bootsie]

This sentiment reminds me of my FIL's recent comment regarding wives being awarded a portion of their husband's 401K earnings upon divorce. My FIL believes he earned the money, and he invested it for his retirement. He believes his wife didn't earn it, doesn't view their marriage as a financial partnership, and she doesn't deserve to partake in it if they divorce. I attempted to set him straight, but he's an old farmer and won't change his views. I'm just glad I'm not married to him.

 

How much marriage is a financial partnership depends on state laws and the way you legally set up financial arrangements (which may be limited by state laws).

 

In Texas, for example, it is almost impossible to have any "separate property." For a SAHM this is often a good situation, but not always. All income and property is 100% owned and controlled by the husband and the wife. Thus if a SAHM's parents give her a monetary gift, her husband can spend 100% of it.

 

As far as the law, there is no statement that a SAHM cannot get a credit card. The law simply states that ability to pay must be considered based upon what the individual can legally control to repay the debt. You can have zero income and the bank can still determine that you are likely to be able to repay the debt if you hold sufficient assets.

[Parrothead]

 

 

 

Chucki's dh is not military. And I took it to read that we are more likely to think about it, not that nobody else thinks about it.

This is what I meant. Your typical middle management guy/gal doesn't really have to worry much beyond a sudden heart attack or being hit by a bus. Some guys/gals are in harm's way more than the management person.

[Parrothead]

Dh has terrible credit and yet he was still able to get a cell plan and we have all of our utlities. We had to take a few extra steps and pay ahead on some things but we are covered.

 

I understand that some of you have dh's leave for the day (month, months etc) and it is a reality that they may not come home. I am sure that is hard. My reason for posting to you though was because just because my dh does not have a high risk job does not mean we haven't planned for the worst case scenario.

 

I think it is a bit ironic that you are defending the right for SAH's to be able to get credit that is not tied to their spouse and in the next breath saying that a lot fo SAHM's bury their head in the sand about these things. Maybe that is why the CC companies don't like to extend credit to them than.

Only it isn't the credit card companies throwing down on SAH's it is a gov't regulation.

 

CC companies make lots of money off people who pay late via high fees and interest. They love those types of people.

[5kidsforME]

Only it isn't the credit card companies throwing down on SAH's it is a gov't regulation.

 

CC companies make lots of money off people who pay late via high fees and interest. They love those types of people.

 

CC companies or the Gov.

[5kidsforME]

CC companies or the Gov.

 

 

And no, I don't like that gov. officials think that they should have any say in what private citizens and private companies do.

[5kidsforME]

Actually, I think I do deserve at least some small credit for my husband's income. I have helped him accomplish things. I have given up things (particularly accomplishments that earn money) to help him and our family. And I have no doubt he would agree with me.

 

 

Yeah, I would say we all feel we should get credit for helping our dh's the way we do. I am sure our dh's feel the same way.

 

I just don't think that kind of credit is in any way related to monetary credit. That's like applying for credit and saying please give me credit I'm a good person. Companies need a tangible reason to extend credit. (I do understand now that this is the gov. making these restrictions not the companies.)

 

I am still scratching my head as to over why the gov. felt a need to get invoved with this. How is it helping them to have any say in it?? Are they losing money because SAH people are not paying or something? :confused: Are they trying to "protect" the SAH people that don't pay and then their credit is shot?

[Bootsie]

Yeah, I would say we all feel we should get credit for helping our dh's the way we do. I am sure our dh's feel the same way.

 

I just don't think that kind of credit is in any way related to monetary credit. That's like applying for credit and saying please give me credit I'm a good person. Companies need a tangible reason to extend credit. (I do understand now that this is the gov. making these restrictions not the companies.)

 

I am still scratching my head as to over why the gov. felt a need to get invoved with this. How is it helping them to have any say in it?? Are they losing money because SAH people are not paying or something? :confused: Are they trying to "protect" the SAH people that don't pay and then their credit is shot?

 

The felt a need because people have been screaming "Why did the government let banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back?" This has been repeatedly said about mortgages and credit cards during the recent financial crisis.

[regentrude]

Then again I do have an income. I consider my husband's income to be in part my income.

 

 

That is a voluntary arrangement between the two of you, and from a moral standpoint, I agree. (We do treat both our incomes as joint property, and we are both signing fro our debts jointly as well.)

Legally, however, his income is his, and his debts are his alone, too. Unless you live in a community property state, the bank can not hold him responsible for any debt incurred by you.

 

And then I wonder if he were to die, if I'd have to pay bills in his name (thinking out loud here).

 

 

If he leaves money, you need to pay his bills before you can inherit the rest. But if he leaves no money, you are only responsible for his debts if you live in a state with community property law (and don't have a prenuptial agreement that says otherwise).

In the other states, you are not responsible for your spouses bills.

There are some exceptions in the law where clearly shared household expenses such as utility bills are treated separately. But if he has gambling debt, for instance, you are not liable if his estate does not cover the debt.

[Parrothead]

The felt a need because people have been screaming "Why did the government let banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back?" This has been repeatedly said about mortgages and credit cards during the recent financial crisis.

Actually it was because the gov't told the banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back.

[Jenny in Atl]

Odd, I haven't worked "officially" in years, yet I just got a card a couple years ago (Amex), and get your pre-approved junk mail from CC companies all the time. :001_huh:

[5kidsforME]

But look at it this way. As long as my husband's income flows in and I am allowed to spend it, I have an income I can spend on my credit card bill. If he loses his job or leaves me, I'd have an interruption in my cash flow that would be no different if he were to lose his job. I'd have to find another source of income (as would he).

 

How is this different? He essentially employs me. There is no guarantees made by his employer just as I have no guarantees either.

 

Lets say your husband makes $50,000 a year. He applies for a credit card and writes his income as $50,000. You apply for a credit card

saying your income is $50,000. Essentially you are saying your household income is $100,000/year. Even if the company has no idea that your dh is the one that makes $50,000 and you in theory do not bring home a paycheck. Also, when you apply for a credit card don't you have to include your SS number? It has been years and years since I have had a credit card so I forget. Anyway, they can see that on paper you bring home nothing. So I guess it is up to them to determine the risk.

[laundrycrisis]

If the federal government wants to get involved this way, then I think that there should also be a federal law by which my husband should be legally allowed to pay me a salary, that is not taxed as income for me since it is transferred between members of the same nuclear family unit and income taxes are already paid on it once, but that I should be able to claim that as income for credit purposes to satisfy this other federal law that is really scr3wing non-working spouses.

[regentrude]

Ok, so if I were his housekeeper, babysitter, editor, resume writer, appointment maker, or hired tutor for his children then only then I am legally employed and am allowed to call some of his income mine? It seems like we are talking mostly semantics here.

 

The fact I'm married to him does not mean my services suddenly don't cost him anything.

 

Again: morally I completely agree.

But legally, he is not required to pay you... he probably can't let you starve or be homeless (not sure how exactly the law deals with this basic minimum), but he does not have to pay you a wage for the services you do to the family - you can not sue him for it.

I'll be very happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of the legal situation in a state without community property.

[5kidsforME]

Again: morally I completely agree.

But legally, he is not required to pay you... he probably can't let you starve or be homeless (not sure how exactly the law deals with this basic minimum), but he does not have to pay you a wage for the services you do to the family - you can not sue him for it.

I'll be very happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of the legal situation in a state without community property.

 

 

Well not right now. I am sure if someone sues for that well....wouldn't that just be a divorce?

 

I bet someone could sue for it and win. I wouldn't want to have or be in THAT marriage though. ;)

[Parrothead]

Lets say your husband makes $50,000 a year. He applies for a credit card and writes his income as $50,000. You apply for a credit card

saying your income is $50,000. Essentially you are saying your household income is $100,000/year. Even if the company has no idea that your dh is the one that makes $50,000 and you in theory do not bring home a paycheck. Also, when you apply for a credit card don't you have to include your SS number? It has been years and years since I have had a credit card so I forget. Anyway, they can see that on paper you bring home nothing. So I guess it is up to them to determine the risk.

No, bolded is not how it works.

 

One always has to give a SSN when applying for credit. That number is one of the ways to identify each John Smith from the other ones. But potential creditors do not pull one's IRS files.

 

Many many creditors base credit worthiness on household income not strictly employment income. If I were independently wealthy living on interest of several trusts I'd have (household) income but no employment.

[5kidsforME]

I got a credit card a month ago in my name. I was asked household income, employer (I listed none), and SS#. I was given credit instantly. I did not lie. I did not mislead.

 

 

Interesting. Truly, I mean, you must have gotten it because of good credit and like Chucki said they couldn't probably really care less becuase they like charging their fees and interest.

[5kidsforME]

No, bolded is not how it works.

 

One always has to give a SSN when applying for credit. That number is one of the ways to identify each John Smith from the other ones. But potential creditors do not pull one's IRS files.

 

Many many creditors base credit worthiness on household income not strictly employment income. If I were independently wealthy living on interest of several trusts I'd have (household) income but no employment.

 

 

Gotcha. FTR, I do agree with you that the cc companies are usually pretty happy to extend credit wherever because they get their interest penalties etc.

[Parrothead]

Ok, so if I were his housekeeper, babysitter, editor, resume writer, appointment maker, or hired tutor for his children then only then I am legally employed and am allowed to call some of his income mine? It seems like we are talking mostly semantics here.

 

Employment contracts hardly exist in this country so his income is not guaranteed. So that argument doesn't work either.

 

The fact I'm married to him does not mean my services suddenly don't cost him anything.

It would be akin to slavery to think so.

[SKL]

So, women who work hard for their families, who help their husband's career along, etc are not deserving of some control over their finances? They don't deserve the protection that credit in their name offers in case of death or divorce?

 

 

Women absolutely deserve some control over the family finances. But that should be between the wife and the husband, not the unemployed spouse and the lenders.

 

Not sure what happens in case of divorce. If the woman gets a settlement, alimony, whatever, then that should be taken into account. If she's SOL per the courts and doesn't have enough of her own income, then she shouldn't have access to credit, because how can she borrow something she can't pay back?

[Bootsie]

Ok, so if I were his housekeeper, babysitter, editor, resume writer, appointment maker, or hired tutor for his children then only then I am legally employed and am allowed to call some of his income mine? It seems like we are talking mostly semantics here.

 

Employment contracts hardly exist in this country so his income is not guaranteed. So that argument doesn't work either.

 

The fact I'm married to him does not mean my services suddenly don't cost him anything.

 

From a legal standpoint there are major differences. While his income is not guaranteed, he has unemployment benefits that are paid in the case that the is laid off. Unfortunately, SAHM don't get unemployment benefits if their husband decides to fire them.

 

Statistically speaking, it is more likely for someone who has had an income generating job and is laid off to receive another income generating job fairly soon after losing a job than for a SAHM to find another source of income (another spouse) should they find themselves "fired" by their current spouse.

[....]

Wow, this thread really grew legs and took off!! :D

[Parrothead]

Again: morally I completely agree.

But legally, he is not required to pay you... he probably can't let you starve or be homeless (not sure how exactly the law deals with this basic minimum), but he does not have to pay you a wage for the services you do to the family - you can not sue him for it.

I'll be very happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of the legal situation in a state without community property.

Have you the state codes on this?

 

Oh, one could probably sue for it, but I don't think the marriage would last long. ;)

[AHASRADA]

We avoid credit as much as possible. We have had the same *one* credit card (in dh's name) since we were seniors in college. BTW, dh wasn't making any more $$ at the time than I was, we just didn't want more than one cc account.

 

I agree that, in theory, it makes sense that someone with "no income" should not be given credit. However, the way the system is currently set up, this leaves the at-home parent with a non-existent credit score (which equals "bad credit"), putting them at a terrible disadvantage if their spouse were to leave or die. Buying a house, even renting an apartment, could be made more difficult, if not impossible.

 

IMHO, the solution to this issue should be joint credit card accounts. If two names can be put on bank accounts, mortgages, car loans, etc., why not cc accounts? This way, *household income* is reported to obtain a *household* credit card, with both spouses' names on the account, with their own cards, both being equally responsible for payments. Duhh! :lol: This would solve all of the issues: people without any income couldn't be issued cards, but those who "share" someone else's income could still establish credit in their name.

 

BTW, I applied for a JCPenney cc card a few months ago, only to use as a rewards card when shopping at their store. I had to punch my SS# and "household income" into the electronic card-swiping machine, and voila, I had my card, in my name, with no verified income whatsoever. :glare:

[Parrothead]

Gotcha. FTR, I do agree with you that the cc companies are usually pretty happy to extend credit wherever because they get their interest penalties etc.

If I could only get AMEX to give me a card.... :D

 

(grumble, grumble, grumble, d@m $79.00 hospital screw up.... gotta go fire off another letter... grumble, grumble...)

[regentrude]

Have you the state codes on this?

 

 

If the info I have is correct, community property states are Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Textas, Washington and Wisconsin.

[Bootsie]

Technically that is not true. I could sue him for alimony. I'm not saying that is as neat, pretty, and straight forward as unemployment, but it's certainly been done.

 

Not all states have alimony.

[Parrothead]

From a legal standpoint there are major differences. While his income is not guaranteed, he has unemployment benefits that are paid in the case that the is laid off. Unfortunately, SAHM don't get unemployment benefits if their husband decides to fire them.

 

Statistically speaking, it is more likely for someone who has had an income generating job and is laid off to receive another income generating job fairly soon after losing a job than for a SAHM to find another source of income (another spouse) should they find themselves "fired" by their current spouse.

Four words:

 

Child support and alimony.

[ezrabean2005]

I got a credit card a month ago in my name. I was asked household income, employer (I listed none), and SS#. I was given credit instantly. I did not lie. I did not mislead.

 

I think it usually asks for household income. So the title of this thread and the entire argument is misleading. If you are applying for a CC where you are asked for your specific income, just apply for a different one.

 

If my DH applied for a credit card without my knowledge, and I was the primary breadwinner (my reality), you can bet it would affect me. It is the same the other way around. Being clear about who attends a paid job does not mean that it minimizes the other spouses role. It is just stating the facts. I resent the insinuation that I am somehow insulting women/SAHM's by saying this.

 

I don't like entitlements in any form. I feel this is one. No one owes you (universal you) credit. As a private business, they can make the rules however they like.

[TranquilMind]

It makes perfect sense to me that a person with no income can not obtain a credit card. If the person has a spouse with an income, he/she can have a card in the spouses name because it's the spouse who has to pay it. I don't get what the complaining is about.

If anything, it is far too easy to get credit in this country.

You would get it if you were in a situation where the spouse died and everything was in his name. You are persona non grata when it comes to getting utilities on your own or anything else. Make sure you have your own credit at all times and your names on all utilities.

[regentrude]

The house is in both of our names and the bank knows I don't have an income. How is this different?

 

It is different because you have the house.

If your income earning spouse died, you would still have the equity in the house, which the bank can take form you if you should default on your mortgage.

With CC debt, you have no collateral.

[Parrothead]

We avoid credit as much as possible. We have had the same *one* credit card (in dh's name) since we were seniors in college. BTW, dh wasn't making any more $$ at the time than I was, we just didn't want more than one cc account.

 

I agree that, in theory, it makes sense that someone with "no income" should not be given credit. However, the way the system is currently set up, this leaves the at-home parent with a non-existent credit score (which equals "bad credit"), putting them at a terrible disadvantage if their spouse were to leave or die. Buying a house, even renting an apartment, could be made more difficult, if not impossible.

 

IMHO, the solution to this issue should be joint credit card accounts. If two names can be put on bank accounts, mortgages, car loans, etc., why not cc accounts? This way, *household income* is reported to obtain a *household* credit card, with both spouses' names on the account, with their own cards, both being equally responsible for payments. Duhh! :lol: This would solve all of the issues: people without any income couldn't be issued cards, but those who "share" someone else's income could still establish credit in their name.

 

BTW, I applied for a JCPenney cc card a few months ago, only to use as a rewards card when shopping at their store. I had to punch my SS# and "household income" into the electronic card-swiping machine, and voila, I had my card, in my name, with no verified income whatsoever. :glare:

I would actually be okay with a joint CC account more so than as an authorized user.

 

The AU option sounds too much like having to ask permission than I'm comfortable with. I pretty much have not had to ask another adult for permission for anything since I turned 18.

 

The AU option also smacks of Father Knows Best and the little woman having an allowance.

[Parrothead]

If the info I have is correct, community property states are Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Textas, Washington and Wisconsin.

No, I mean where does it say a wife cannot sue a husband for payment for services rendered? Or vice versa.

 

The only think I know of that covers what you said would be laws against spousal abuse, i.e. a spouse cannot withhold food from their spouse.

[Parrothead]

I think it usually asks for household income. So the title of this thread and the entire argument is misleading. If you are applying for a CC where you are asked for your specific income, just apply for a different one.

 

If my DH applied for a credit card without my knowledge, and I was the primary breadwinner (my reality), you can bet it would affect me. It is the same the other way around. Being clear about who attends a paid job does not mean that it minimizes the other spouses role. It is just stating the facts. I resent the insinuation that I am somehow insulting women/SAHM's by saying this.

 

I don't like entitlements in any form. I feel this is one. No one owes you (universal you) credit. As a private business, they can make the rules however they like.

However it is not a private business, it is the government stepping in and saying that household income is no longer acceptable.

[Parrothead]

You would get it if you were in a situation where the spouse died and everything was in his name. You are persona non grata when it comes to getting utilities on your own or anything else. Make sure you have your own credit at all times and your names on all utilities.

This information was something drilled into our (ladies my age or slightly older) heads by our mothers because they saw our grandmothers struggle with learning how to write a check and deal with finances. For decades, nay centuries, women were told to leave the finances to the men. Not to worry their pretty little heads. Then the man dies or leaves and they were worse than stuck.

 

In no way do I want to see society go back to that model.

[Parrothead]

I've only had a taste of this, but yeah it's a pain. I once put a utility in DH's name. I called for the final pay off amount because we were moving. They didn't even want to tell me the pay off. I was like DUDE I WANT TO PAY YOU. I bet they would find me no problem if my husband didn't pay. :glare:

And if you did know the exact amount I betcha they would have taken the check you signed in a heartbeat. :glare: