SAHMs & SAHDs can't get credit cards now?

[Mrs Mungo]

If you re-read my posts, I never said 'no one needs it', I've just said over and over again that it is a choice and not a 'necessity'.

 

How are these two statements compatible in your opinion? Either it is a need/necessity for some people or it isn't.

 

If you make choices that put you in a position where you feel that kind of thing is helpful that is certainly your decision. I just don't agree that a credit card is 'necessary' for everyone and that is possible to live quite agreeably without one. I'll even go out on a limb and say I don't think it is even a very good idea for a lot of people.

 

Honestly, I am not even sure what you are talking about. Credit cards or a good credit history? Everyone has a credit history or credit rating, like it or not.

[jewellsmommy]

Reading this idea "if you don't have a job, then you shouldn't be given credit that you can't pay for..." is driving me crazy!!! :banghead:

 

As a sahm, I DO have a job! If I was not the wife, then dh would have to pay me as the live in nanny/maid/tutor (I don't guess we could count professional prostitute too :tongue_smilie:..Just kidding!). Why should my service suddenly not count as a legitimate job just because we are married? His income should partly be mine because I am certainly earning my keep. I CAN pay for the debt...with MY portion of the income that dh brings home. If we were to divorce, I would still pay for my portion with whatever I sued for. If he died (God forbid), then I would pay with the life insurance...So what is the problem here?

 

Aside from the whole 'do you even need credit' debate going on here, why are so many willing to just rollover and deny that they deserve an officially recognized stake in the family money? :001_huh: Don't we pay our children money for certain chores on top of what their basic family requirements are. Why shouldn't the sah spouse be paid for certain chores?:tongue_smilie:

[laundrycrisis]

Reading this idea "if you don't have a job, then you shouldn't be given credit that you can't pay for..." is driving me crazy!!! :banghead:

 

As a sahm, I DO have a job! If I was not the wife, then dh would have to pay me as the live in nanny/maid/tutor (I don't guess we could count professional prostitute too :tongue_smilie:..Just kidding!). Why should my service suddenly not count as a legitimate job just because we are married? His income should partly be mine because I am certainly earning my keep. I CAN pay for the debt...with MY portion of the income that dh brings home. If we were to divorce, I would still pay for my portion with whatever I sued for. If he died (God forbid), then I would pay with the life insurance...So what is the problem here?

 

Aside from the whole 'do you even need credit' debate going on here, why are so many willing to just rollover and deny that they deserve an officially recognized stake in the family money? :001_huh: Don't we pay our children money for certain chores on top of what their basic family requirements are. Why shouldn't the sah spouse be paid for certain chores?:tongue_smilie:

 

Me too. We were able to buy our first house because we made the down payment with the savings I had accumulated during my years of working before we met each other. I worked full time for the first five years we were married. Our savings/investment portfolio grew substantially from inheritance when my father passed away. My pre-marriage IRAs considerably improve our financial position.

 

All that is not even considering the value of my support of DH's career. Because I am committed to full-time child care, he has almost total freedom to further his career. Whether it is working overtime or being on call, business or continuing education travel or attending evening "networking" events, he is able to do all of that without ever having to worry "what about the kids ?" The kids are covered - by me. When I was continuing to try to work full-time after DS1 was born, but I was the only person in DS's life available for child care if he was sick, my freedom to work was very limited because I had to manage the drop off, commute, commute and pick up times because there was nobody else. I could never work late, work overtime, or make up work time that I missed for any reason. I couldn't have a job that involved travel or any kind of overtime because my DH's job has him on call 24/7 and I could not count on him for child care. I ended up losing my job because I missed too much work from caring for a sick child. Our only other option would have been hiring a full-time nanny and we would have actually lost money on that because I wasn't earning much. So I cover the kids, and DH can do what is necessary to pursue the career that brings in the money. But I absolutely feel that I am earning half of that income, and I do have legal rights to our family's financial assets, and so credit-wise I am not the same as a person living with very low or no income.

[Tarreymere]

Reading this idea "if you don't have a job, then you shouldn't be given credit that you can't pay for..." is driving me crazy!!! :banghead:

 

As a sahm, I DO have a job! If I was not the wife, then dh would have to pay me as the live in nanny/maid/tutor (I don't guess we could count professional prostitute too :tongue_smilie:..Just kidding!). Why should my service suddenly not count as a legitimate job just because we are married? His income should partly be mine because I am certainly earning my keep. I CAN pay for the debt...with MY portion of the income that dh brings home. If we were to divorce, I would still pay for my portion with whatever I sued for. If he died (God forbid), then I would pay with the life insurance...So what is the problem here?

 

Aside from the whole 'do you even need credit' debate going on here, why are so many willing to just rollover and deny that they deserve an officially recognized stake in the family money? :001_huh: Don't we pay our children money for certain chores on top of what their basic family requirements are. Why shouldn't the sah spouse be paid for certain chores?:tongue_smilie:

 

That is certainly an interesting idea. I wonder how that would work out if an employed spouse 'employed' the stay-at-home parent and paid a salary.....I imagine the cost would be a certain amount of taxes but I bet this might be a solution for those SAH folks who want to have credit. Pros and cons again.

 

If anyone tries this, let us know.

[Tarreymere]

I've mentioned this before, but government doesn't want anyone to stay at home. They want you in the workforce so you can pay taxes. They don't care about what is best for your family. They figure you can earn a wage and pay taxes on it then come home to your family and have that 'quality time' that is promoted in all of those magazine articles. You can hire a housekeeper to do those pesky chores. Then, not only do they get taxes on your wages they just know you will be spending more of those earnings on things like child care, housekeeping, and all of those consumer goods that are available out there looking better and better with all of that cash burning a hole in your pocket, thus keeping all that money in motion. What is not to love?

Of course, the SAH isn't home to watch the kids so they go to daycare and public school. The SAH can't help elderly parents so they go to personal care homes or nursing homes. Mom and Dad are both tired and stressed, so they are more likely to split up. The family is destroyed and becomes a collection of individuals who are then more and more under the control of the state. The state becomes the family. Why is this desirable? Pick up a history book. Families support each other and form networks and tend to think independently. Individuals are more docile and easier to isolate and control.

The whole credit thing is a self-perpetuating industry fraught with the kind of error that would get any other business shut down, and sanctioned by the government because it promotes their purposes. So now they want to use the credit system to frighten SAHs back into the workforce. I'm not surprised.

[Joanne]

Reading this idea "if you don't have a job, then you shouldn't be given credit that you can't pay for..." is driving me crazy!!! :banghead:

 

As a sahm, I DO have a job! If I was not the wife, then dh would have to pay me as the live in nanny/maid/tutor (I don't guess we could count professional prostitute too :tongue_smilie:..Just kidding!). Why should my service suddenly not count as a legitimate job just because we are married? His income should partly be mine because I am certainly earning my keep. I CAN pay for the debt...with MY portion of the income that dh brings home. If we were to divorce, I would still pay for my portion with whatever I sued for. If he died (God forbid), then I would pay with the life insurance...So what is the problem here?

 

Aside from the whole 'do you even need credit' debate going on here, why are so many willing to just rollover and deny that they deserve an officially recognized stake in the family money? :001_huh: Don't we pay our children money for certain chores on top of what their basic family requirements are. Why shouldn't the sah spouse be paid for certain chores?:tongue_smilie:

 

I'm crazy on the other "side." I don't understand how participants in this thread don't make the distinction between a business reality and support of a lifestyle decision.

 

My reaction to the credit granting criteria is that it is not about how much an at home spouse "works" or not. It's not about how having an at home parent allows for the other to focus on work, study, etc. (And, note that essentially, there is an at home Dad in our situation). The credit granting mechanism isn't making a comment on at home parenting, your worth, your contribution or your role.

 

The spouse that does not have a direct, individual income does not have a direct, individual income and I think it's fair and reasonable business practice to make credit decisions based on that.

 

I *also* think it's fair for a credit granting source to consider "family" income. But I don't think that should be federally demanded.

[Meriwether]

I'm crazy on the other "side." I don't understand how participants in this thread don't make the distinction between a business reality and support of a lifestyle decision.

 

My reaction to the credit granting criteria is that it is not about how much an at home spouse "works" or not. It's not about how having an at home parent allows for the other to focus on work, study, etc. (And, note that essentially, there is an at home Dad in our situation). The credit granting mechanism isn't making a comment on at home parenting, your worth, your contribution or your role.

 

The spouse that does not have a direct, individual income does not have a direct, individual income and I think it's fair and reasonable business practice to make credit decisions based on that.

 

I *also* think it's fair for a credit granting source to consider "family" income. But I don't think that should be federally demanded.[/QUOTE]

 

I could very well be wrong, but I thought the big deal was that the government was excluding household income. Which, all else aside, is not a good business model. I have more access to cash than many working people. Dh spends very little money. He buys gas and eats lunch out occasionally. He told me last night he is buying me a Christmas present. I grocery shop; buy the kids' clothes, gifts, household items, school books, project supplies; etc. I put almost all of that on the credit card. Dh writes a check at the end of the month (I could write the check, but I don't enjoy paying bills so Dh does that). Denying me a credit card would be bad business. The business reality in our case is that Dh makes X amount of dollars and I have access to it.

 

I really do understand your first paragraph, but I don't view it that way. There are people with jobs who have more credit than they can handle and default on their credit cards. I am less of a business risk with zero personal income than many people with jobs. And that isn't solely because my Dh has a good job. I managed my credit card responsibly when I was a student living on scholarships and summer jobs. In fact, I still use the same card I had back then. Dh and I both have good credit, but mine is better because I've had a card longer.

[Sandra in FL]

So do you think that we shouldn't have ROTH IRAs which are based on our dh's earned income? To me, it's a similar principle - I'm allowed a ROTH IRA based on his income (without his permission) as long as we file a joint tax return.

[Meriwether]

This frustrates me as well. I DO have a job. My husband pays me for my services. In fact, he gives me his entire paycheck. If anyone doesn't make any money, it's him! :tongue_smilie: I'm kidding about that last part, but seriously, I earn money. Basically my husband wakes up, showers, and leaves for work. He comes home. Every.single.other task in his day is done by me (ok I don't help him onto and off of the toilet). If he were to hire someone to do all of that, why is that then a job, but if I do it, it's not?

 

My BIL has called his salary my sister's "babysitting money" for years.

[Sandra in FL]

I could very well be wrong, but I thought the big deal was that the government was excluding household income. Which, all else aside, is not a good business model. I have more access to cash than many working people. Dh spends very little money. He buys gas and eats lunch out occasionally. He told me last night he is buying me a Christmas present. I grocery shop; buy the kids' clothes, gifts, household items, school books, project supplies; etc. I put almost all of that on the credit card. Dh writes a check at the end of the month (I could write the check, but I don't enjoy paying bills so Dh does that). Denying me a credit card would be bad business. The business reality in our case is that Dh makes X amount of dollars and I have access to it.

 

I really do understand your first paragraph, but I don't view it that way. There are people with jobs who have more credit than they can handle and default on their credit cards. I am less of a business risk with zero personal income than many people with jobs. And that isn't solely because my Dh has a good job. I managed my credit card responsibly when I was a student living on scholarships and summer jobs. In fact, I still use the same card I had back then. Dh and I both have good credit, but mine is better because I've had a card longer.

 

Exactly. I'm the one who had investments before we married, changed them all to joint accounts, makes the financial decisions, invests the money, and does all the shopping. I think it's insulting that they feel they have to "help" me or save me from myself. I'm perfectly able to control my impulses/spending. I resent not being able to get a credit card on my own because I don't "officially" earn money even though I (we) have income from my rental bought before we married.

[Sandra in FL]

I'm crazy on the other "side." I don't understand how participants in this thread don't make the distinction between a business reality and support of a lifestyle decision.

 

My reaction to the credit granting criteria is that it is not about how much an at home spouse "works" or not. It's not about how having an at home parent allows for the other to focus on work, study, etc. (And, note that essentially, there is an at home Dad in our situation). The credit granting mechanism isn't making a comment on at home parenting, your worth, your contribution or your role.

 

The spouse that does not have a direct, individual income does not have a direct, individual income and I think it's fair and reasonable business practice to make credit decisions based on that.

 

I *also* think it's fair for a credit granting source to consider "family" income. But I don't think that should be federally demanded.

 

So the income gotten from my investments bought before our marriage doesn't count as a "direct, individual income" simply because it isn't earned - it doesn't contribute to our household income? Or if I inherit money/property from my parents, that wouldn't count either - just the income from his job.

[TravelingChris]

I have no problems if some bank or store ever decided they didn't want to give me credit because I don't have a separate income. It isn't the businesses deciding at all. It wouldn't be. I am totally sure and have witnessed that the stores and banks want to extend me credit. They have a 26 year history of me paying on time and of not declaring bankruptcy, having a foreclosure or short sale. My husband makes a nice salary with benefits now. If they know, and many of them do, that my dh is active duty miltary, they know he will retire soon and get that retirement check plus a paycheck in his new job. Most companies will bend over backwards to offer me credit. Now if they aren't doing it because of a new law, that has nothing to do with extending credit to those who can't pay. I can pay as evidenced by my more than quarter century of paying.

[Tigger]

I guess I should just be happy my husband doesn't treat me as his child. :glare:

 

Oh and the US Dept of Education has no problem taking my husband's money to pay for my school loan. I cannot argue that it's not my money or even claim my lack of income to get a lower payment amount per month.

 

True.

 

But if you defaulted and the IRS garnished your tax refund to pay your student loans, your DH would file and injured spouse claim and get the money back because it is not his debt, it is yours.

[Parrothead]

This is how I look at it as well. I am not sure why you should be able to use your husbands income to obtain a credit card without his signature, if it is his income you are using to pay it. I know I would be pretty intense if someone obligated me to pay for something without my knowledge or permission. And I hate the word permission being used between a husband and a wife, hate it, but the company giving the credit has to protect themselves as well.

Do you have to get his signature to use his money to go buy groceries? What is the difference? Why would you be allowed to use his money for every other expense you incur except for a credit card in your name?

[Parrothead]

Well, unless one happened to plan ahead for emergencies and had actual cash on hand.......but that seems to be rather unpopular on this board.

A lot of newly marrieds or people who have hit a rough patch with, say, medical issues may have used up their savings.

[Tigger]

I've never heard of that.

 

There are other examples of times I HAVE to claim what my husband earns as my income. If I want a student loan I have to. If I wanted food assistance I'd have to. I'm sure there are other instances.

 

Injured Spouse Rule

[Parrothead]

I'm crazy on the other "side." I don't understand how participants in this thread don't make the distinction between a business reality and support of a lifestyle decision.

 

My reaction to the credit granting criteria is that it is not about how much an at home spouse "works" or not. It's not about how having an at home parent allows for the other to focus on work, study, etc. (And, note that essentially, there is an at home Dad in our situation). The credit granting mechanism isn't making a comment on at home parenting, your worth, your contribution or your role.

 

The spouse that does not have a direct, individual income does not have a direct, individual income and I think it's fair and reasonable business practice to make credit decisions based on that.

 

I *also* think it's fair for a credit granting source to consider "family" income. But I don't think that should be federally demanded.

But the problem is not as you've stated above. The credit industry does consider "family" income. They normally call it "household" income. I've gained all my credit with household income. No problem.

 

The problem is that the federal government has decided to shut the door after the horse has left. The are using the excuse of the credit crisis to regulate who can receive credit. Instead of tightening the regulations that caused the credit crisis in the first place (people with bad or no credit, no employment verification to obtain a mortgage, etc.) they have arbitrarily declared that SAHs can not receive credit. At least without the signature of the employed spouse. Normally the man.

 

They are the ones with the regulation saying SAHs cannot get credit in their name without the signature of the earning spouse. That is sending society back to the dark age of father knows best and putting the little woman on an allowance.

[Parrothead]

I thought about something last night. The last time I pulled my credit report just to look at it, it credited me with paying for credit cards that were not in my name. I had a card with my name on it, I wrote out the checks to pay for the bills, but those cards were all in my husband's name as the primary card holder (no I'm not a cosigner or anything). So apparently in the eyes of the credit card company I have something to do with it. I was confused as to why it showed up on my report, but it did. So what the heck.

If you are an authorized user on someone else's card it will show on your report.

[Parrothead]

I guess I should just be happy my husband doesn't treat me as his child. :glare:

 

Oh and the US Dept of Education has no problem taking my husband's money to pay for my school loan. I cannot argue that it's not my money or even claim my lack of income to get a lower payment amount per month.

Oh the irony. :lol:

[ChrissySC]

Investigate the rates and fees. You would not want a card now. I have closed almost all of mine now. With ATM/VISA cards, you don't need a credit card. :) You do need the money and the account though.

[Parrothead]

Investigate the rates and fees. You would not want a card now. I have closed almost all of mine now. With ATM/VISA cards, you don't need a credit card. :) You do need the money and the account though.

I think it depends on one's lifestyle whether there is a need. If I need to rent a car or book a hotel room I don't want my checking account tied up with hundreds of dollars of holds because I've used my debit card. Even if I end up paying cash from savings those holds can take up to 72 hours to release.

 

Second, if one does not carry a balance one does not pay interest no matter the rate. My Cap 1 card has a ridiculous rate. But I do not pay a dime in interest because I pay in full prior to the due date. I'm actually making money in the form of rewards for a couple of my accounts. I'm one of those people CC companies hate because I'm costing them money.

[Murphy101]

This is fine by me.

 

I have no personal income with which to back a line of credit in my name only. It is that simple. There is no way I would give credit to someone without their own line of income or the cosign of someone with a line of income. That is just common business sense.:confused:

 

I also don't think spouses should be held liable for each other's unsigned debt, regardless of which one has income.

 

Personally, I see WAY more women devastated by their working spouse's debts than the other way around.

 

The only time household income has been considered for me, is when we needed food stamps.

[NicAnn]

If you re-read my posts, I never said 'no one needs it', I've just said over and over again that it is a choice and not a 'necessity'. If you make choices that put you in a position where you feel that kind of thing is helpful that is certainly your decision. I just don't agree that a credit card is 'necessary' for everyone and that is possible to live quite agreeably without one. I'll even go out on a limb and say I don't think it is even a very good idea for a lot of people.

 

Rainefox, I agree with basically everything you've said in this thread! Especially the bolded.

 

I realize this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm confused how everyone got the impression that if you don't have credit cards you have to live in a rural farm area? Up until two years ago we lived in a huge city. We live in a town now, but not a farm by any means. My husband is a police officer, not a farmer...

I just want to say, for anyone considering giving up the credit cards, that you can still have the same luxuries and accommodations as you could without credit. May just take a little longer. :)

[ChrissySC]

Yes the rates suck. We closed almost all of ours too. There are a lot of financing deals though (especially for store cards). For example, we bought flooring from Lumber Liquidators. We had 12 months interest free financing. We paid it off in the 12 months. That is a better deal than putting money into a savings account.

 

 

 

:lol: I have opened a belk card 3 times! I keep closing it too. LOL

 

I put my gas pack in with a 12month no interest card. Closed it too.

 

They have the use. I agree totally.

[Plucky]

Rainefox, I agree with basically everything you've said in this thread! Especially the bolded.

 

I realize this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm confused how everyone got the impression that if you don't have credit cards you have to live in a rural farm area? Up until two years ago we lived in a huge city. We live in a town now, but not a farm by any means. My husband is a police officer, not a farmer...

I just want to say, for anyone considering giving up the credit cards, that you can still have the same luxuries and accommodations as you could without credit. May just take a little longer. :)

 

But I use my cc to make money. I am spending the money at the store anyway. I want the percentage back that the cc offers or points toward other purchases. I am very frugal. I have better credit than my dh and higher credit limits. Credit can be used with a frugal lifestyle. The problems come when people don't or can't pay off their cards.

[Murphy101]

Rainefox, I agree with basically everything you've said in this thread! Especially the bolded.

 

I realize this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm confused how everyone got the impression that if you don't have credit cards you have to live in a rural farm area? Up until two years ago we lived in a huge city. We live in a town now, but not a farm by any means. My husband is a police officer, not a farmer...

I just want to say, for anyone considering giving up the credit cards, that you can still have the same luxuries and accommodations as you could without credit. May just take a little longer. :)

 

Yeah. We don't do credit and live in town. We do have to have a debit card bc many many places do not accept cash anymore.:glare:

[ChrissySC]

I think it depends on one's lifestyle whether there is a need. If I need to rent a car or book a hotel room I don't want my checking account tied up with hundreds of dollars of holds because I've used my debit card. Even if I end up paying cash from savings those holds can take up to 72 hours to release.

 

Second, if one does not carry a balance one does not pay interest no matter the rate. My Cap 1 card has a ridiculous rate. But I do not pay a dime in interest because I pay in full prior to the due date. I'm actually making money in the form of rewards for a couple of my accounts. I'm one of those people CC companies hate because I'm costing them money.

 

 

Let's be clear that I keep some of mine - including a Cap 1 card too.

 

 

I do not see the problem with obtaining a cosigner, having spouse add you to a card, adding children to a card .... responsibility must come from someone with the means to pay the debt.

 

Banking regulations and lending practicie (regulation too) will only get worse. I fear this is due to the unnatural advantages that were taken during the Clinton administration's loosening of the reigns, which at the time was meant well but abused.:glare:

[Tigger]

But what does this line mean?

 

 

Does this mean my spouse will only get his share of the refund back (half)?

 

It means if you earned income, your portion is calculated against your debt, so the IRS will refund back his portion and keep yours toward your debt obligation - if you earned no income and it was all his income, the amount garnished to pay your debt is refunded back to him because it is not his debt.

[Parrothead]

But I use my cc to make money. I am spending the money at the store anyway. I want the percentage back that the cc offers or points toward other purchases. I am very frugal. I have better credit than my dh and higher credit limits. Credit can be used with a frugal lifestyle. The problems come when people don't or can't pay off their cards.

I also think there are a lot of people out there who do not know how credit works, don't know how to make it work for them. And many who are just plain afraid of it.

 

Not that I'm talking about anyone here. We are all a pretty sharp bunch.

[Parrothead]

Yeah. We don't do credit and live in town. We do have to have a debit card bc many many places do not accept cash anymore.:glare:

What? No cash? Wow!

[Parrothead]

Let's be clear that I keep some of mine - including a Cap 1 card too.

Gotta love Cap 1. :D

 

I do not see the problem with obtaining a cosigner, having spouse add you to a card, adding children to a card .... responsibility must come from someone with the means to pay the debt.

Historically cosigners have been used for people with shaky credit. There is a bit of a stigma attached to needing a cosigner. I have no problem with one spouse adding another spouse to a card as long as that privilege is extended to both spouses.

 

Adding minor child is a different ball of wax as a minor child is under the authority of his parents. I do not subscribe to the idea that my dh has any type of authority over me. Nor do I have any type of authority over him. We are both intelligent adults with the ability to think for ourselves.

 

If I have the ability to write checks or withdrawal money from my joint checking account to pay bills, purchase groceries, buy gas, clothing, gifts or book a hotel room, I have means to pay a debt.

 

Banking regulations and lending practicie (regulation too) will only get worse. I fear this is due to the unnatural advantages that were taken during the Clinton administration's loosening of the reigns, which at the time was meant well but abused.:glare:

I totally agree with the last paragraph.

[Barb_]

I *also* think it's fair for a credit granting source to consider "family" income. But I don't think that should be federally demanded.

 

I think the original point was that it should not be federally prohibited, either. Yet it is.

[CanaryMelody]

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:

 

I wasn't on DH's Sprint account. Called and they wouldn't let me get the balance so I could pay them. Ridiculous. :glare:

 

But now, she can't. At least the way the law is now written, they are not supposed to extend credit based on household income.

 

I'm 40+ years old with no income and no credit. I've had to start my life over (due to a nasty divorce, etc).

 

After my first marriage, I was laid off from a nice paying computer job, and I had no cc (by choice) or car loans (I had a used car paid in full) or anything at that time. exH took all the money in savings and left us. Child Support was non-existent since the divorce wasn't final yet. I qualified for $10 in food stamps a month and no medicaid because they based my qualifications on my eventual unemployment. Sad thing is it took months for my unemployment to kick in and in the meantime, my DD1 and I lived off of the generosity of others while I pounded the streets looking for a new job. It was only by the grace of God that we survived that year.

 

I came into my current marriage with no credit. The only credit on my account is positive reporting from the electric company which is in my name. My skill set from my military days are worth squat. We have always rented from individuals who don't report on-time rent to credit reporting bureaus. I stay at home because our children NEED someone home. If I hadn't gotten married, I'd still be working. Now my job is at home. Being a SAHM is a job. Being a homeschool teacher is a job. My "paycheck" is sharing of my DH's income and of course, the non-monetary rewards (i.e. happy, healthy, learning children). I keep the ship running. I'm the financial bookkeeper and planner, maid, cook, teacher, early childhood care provider, nurse, and income tax preparer. My DH goes to his job and brings home the pay. I stimulate the economy with his pay. He sure wouldn't do that! He won't even buy new undies for himself. :lol:

 

What he does is important. But what I do is important, too. DH and I are a team. If I was to die, yes, DH would still have his job and income. But (and he admits this), he'd be lost. I'm his partner, his teammate, his colleague in life. But if my DH was to die, I'd be in a tough spot. The life insurance through my DH's company has a limit to how much we can have... I'd be able to pay for DH's funeral. Maybe. But then I'd be either moving in with family dependent upon them and/or dependent on the government. (Oh WAIT! That's what they want!) But the government has never recognized the importance of family. The government has been devaluing the role of a stay-at-home parent for a long long time. And this is what angers me.

 

Quite frankly, I'm in the middle on this... I really don't want a CC (and currently DH doesn't have one either) but I know how they can be helpful. Example is when DH goes on business trips and we have to pay out of pocket for the entire thing because we have no CC. We are out that money until he gets reimbursed from his company. And I want to be able to build my no-credit up to good credit. But how? How can I build my credit up without some loan or cc (that I now can't get) to help build it up? Unfortunately, in our society it seems your value (to be hired, get electricity, etc.) is based on your financial value. Some people have been able to save money to pay for homes in full. And I applaud them! But some of us don't have that. Life has dealt us a different hand. Long-distance custody cases, medical issues, and frequent moving because landlords foreclose on homes we were renting have drained our emergency funds dry. Such is life. We pull ourselves back up by our bootstraps and move on. And we will survive.

 

Honestly, I understand the mentality: no income = no credit. And I understand that because DH and I consider his income OUR income, that legally it is not looked in that way. But regardless whether or not I want or need CC in my life, I don't want the government interfering in private businesses and defining my worth. If a company wants to deny me, that's their prerogative. Not the federal governments. :glare:

[Barb_]

Many people are saying they are perfectly fine with not having a personal credit card or they avoid using credit altogether. But as Chucki and others have mentioned, using credit cards and building a healthy credit history are two different things. Do you think you don't have a credit history or FICO score from Fair Issac because you don't use credit cards? Think again. You have a score...it's just a bad score. Why would you need a good credit score? Here are just a few things a bad credit score can prevent you from doing:

 

1. Gaining decent employment. Yes, you are an at-home parent right now. What happens if your husband dies? Or worse, is permanently disabled? At least if he dies most of us have life insurance. But if is is disabled, you must provide care for him and the children as well as gain employment. And no life insurance to help you. More and more companies will pass on you if you do not have a decent credit score.

 

2. Gaining fair terms for repayment of large, unexpected medical bills.

 

3. Gaining more favorable terms on insurance (life, health, auto and home).

 

4. Renting a home if you husband leaves you, dies, or becomes disabled.

 

The point is, those of you who believe everything is just find with a weak credit history and bad FICO score are teetering. As long as everything stays exactly the same as it is today, you will be fine. But whether you realize it or not, you are operating without a safety net. Whether or not you think you need credit, I urge all of you to check your free annual credit report and pay a little extra to see your FICO score. You may get a needed wake up call.

 

ETA: 20 years ago it was unheard of to use credit for the above reasons. FICO scores will only become more important in the future as businesses do their best to use them to limit their own risk.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[bcnlvr]

Many people are saying they are perfectly fine with not having a personal credit card or they avoid using credit altogether. But as Chucki and others have mentioned, using credit cards and building a healthy credit history are two different things. Do you think you don't have a credit history or FICO score from Fair Issac because you don't use credit cards? Think again. You have a score...it's just a bad score. Why would you need a good credit score? Here are just a few things a bad credit score can prevent you from doing:

 

1. Gaining decent employment. Yes, you are an at-home parent right now. What happens if your husband dies? Or worse, is permanently disabled? At least if he dies most of us have life insurance. But if is is disabled, you must provide care for him and the children as well as gain employment. And no life insurance to help you. More and more companies will pass on you if you do not have a decent credit score.

 

2. Gaining fair terms for repayment of large, unexpected medical bills.

 

3. Gaining more favorable terms on insurance (life, health, auto and home).

 

4. Renting a home if you husband leaves you, dies, or becomes disabled.

 

The point is, those of you who believe everything is just find with a weak credit history and bad FICO score are teetering. As long as everything stays exactly the same as it is today, you will be fine. But whether you realize it or not, you are operating without a safety net. Whether or not you think you need credit, I urge all of you to check your free annual credit report and pay a little extra to see your FICO score. You may get a needed wake up call.

 

ETA: 20 years ago it was unheard of to use credit for the above reasons. FICO scores will only become more important in the future as businesses do their best to use them to limit their own risk.

 

My FICO score puts me firmly in the "excellent" category. I have never owned a credit card. There are 5 categories that go into the FICO score (payment history, debt amount, length of credit history, new credit, and credit mix)....credit mix is only 10% of the score. 850 is the highest score one can achieve. Even without CCs, one can build and maintain excellent credit. Credit cards are just not necessary.

 

My own mother did not not build her credit starting at 18 and when she got divorced at 45, she was high and dry without credit-worthiness (ie no credit). She did not plan and she paid the price. Financial planning is crucial to this not happening. I am sorry to hear it when it happens to people, but it is avoidable. I think finance and economics should be a school subject starting in elementary/middle school. So many people do not understand them.

[Plucky]

My FICO score puts me firmly in the "excellent" category. I have never owned a credit card. There are 5 categories that go into the FICO score (payment history, debt amount, length of credit history, new credit, and credit mix)....credit mix is only 10% of the score. 850 is the highest score one can achieve. Even without CCs, one can build and maintain excellent credit. Credit cards are just not necessary.

 

 

 

Do you have a link for that? I was just reading that cc affect 30% of your score, maybe more.

[5kidsforME]

I also think there are a lot of people out there who do not know how credit works, don't know how to make it work for them. And many who are just plain afraid of it.

 

Not that I'm talking about anyone here. We are all a pretty sharp bunch.

 

There are those of us that have abused credit in the past. Dh and I do not have a fear of credit, we know how it can work and know how it could work for us if we chose to use it again.

 

BUT

 

Like a recovering alcoholic, we know to stay away from credit.

 

A recovering alcoholic can intellectually know that a hot toddy relieves certain ailments, that wine in small amounts can be good for you etc. But are smart enough to know, yeah, it is not for me.

 

 

I think a lot of people that are opposed to credit cards have gotten in trouble in the past with it, or they have seen others get in trouble with it and don't want to repeat that.

 

To me, that is smart. ;)

[Barb_]

My FICO score puts me firmly in the "excellent" category. I have never owned a credit card. There are 5 categories that go into the FICO score (payment history, debt amount, length of credit history, new credit, and credit mix)....credit mix is only 10% of the score. 850 is the highest score one can achieve. Even without CCs, one can build and maintain excellent credit. Credit cards are just not necessary.

 

That's great! Don't read this as snark, but I'm curious to know what your excellent score is based on. If you wouldn't mind sharing, maybe those who would like to build up a credit history without cards could learn from your experience.

[Plucky]

There are those of us that have abused credit in the past. Dh and I do not have a fear of credit, we know how it can work and know how it could work for us if we chose to use it again.

 

BUT

 

Like a recovering alcoholic, we know to stay away from credit.

 

A recovering alcoholic can intellectually know that a hot toddy relieves certain ailments, that wine in small amounts can be good for you etc. But are smart enough to know, yeah, it is not for me.

 

 

I think a lot of people that are opposed to credit cards have gotten in trouble in the past with it, or they have seen others get in trouble with it and don't want to repeat that.

 

To me, that is smart. ;)

 

:iagree:

 

But not all of us have this problem, so we shouldn't be punished. :001_smile:

[Sandra in FL]

I don't get what the problem is with cc - whether one chooses to get one or not is her choice. I use them for my convenience/benefit. The point IMO is that the government should not be restricting/legislating who should be allowed to get one and especially not based on "earned" income - what about investment or inherited income which could be more than the "earned" income?

[5kidsforME]

:iagree:

 

But not all of us have this problem, so we shouldn't be punished. :001_smile:

 

 

:confused: Of course. I never said that.

 

I am just pointing out that just because some people advocate the whole no cc angle does not mean, we don't know how it works or have a fear of it.

 

My husband is a recovering alcoholic, just because he had a problem with it he doesn't think alcohol should be abolished.

 

FTR, (again) I don't think the governeent should be getting involved in this at all. If the companies themselves want to make that rule, well that's their prerogative.

[5kidsforME]

I don't get what the problem is with cc - whether one chooses to get one or not is her choice. I use them for my convenience/benefit. The point IMO is that the government should not be restricting/legislating who should be allowed to get one....

 

 

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

And I want to be able to build my no-credit up to good credit. But how? How can I build my credit up without some loan or cc (that I now can't get) to help build it up?

You can't build it up without a loan of some type (mortgage, vehicle financing, personal loan, charge card or credit car).

 

These are all tools that one can use to improve one's credit history/score. They are also tools that if one uses them wisely can improve ones financial picture.

 

But many people do not know how to use credit wisely. They do not know how to make it work for them so that they are making money by using credit.

 

Oh, I've received all of my new credit cards since October when this new regulation went into effect. If you are interested you may be able to get one with just household income.

 

Capital One has a credit steps program to help people with poor credit rebuild.

 

HSBC (which will be taken over by Cap 1 in the spring) also has a similar program.

 

Some cards that are kind to people with poor or fair credit are the Barclay's Apple Visa, the Walmart Visa (or maybe it is a Master Card), cards from one's local credit union, Amazon's Chase Visa, Paypal has a card backed by a major player (either MC or Visa) and Kay Jewelers/Jared's.

 

Also there are some secured cards that report as regular credit cards. I believe Cap 1 has one. Also USAA, maybe Navy Fed (if you can be part of that CU), some local banks and credit unions if one has a relationship with them.

[Parrothead]

ETA: 20 years ago it was unheard of to use credit for the above reasons. FICO scores will only become more important in the future as businesses do their best to use them to limit their own risk.

:iagree: Exactly.

[Parrothead]

There are those of us that have abused credit in the past. Dh and I do not have a fear of credit, we know how it can work and know how it could work for us if we chose to use it again.

 

BUT

 

Like a recovering alcoholic, we know to stay away from credit.

 

A recovering alcoholic can intellectually know that a hot toddy relieves certain ailments, that wine in small amounts can be good for you etc. But are smart enough to know, yeah, it is not for me.

 

 

I think a lot of people that are opposed to credit cards have gotten in trouble in the past with it, or they have seen others get in trouble with it and don't want to repeat that.

 

To me, that is smart. ;)

I agree, it is smart to avoid what one cannot handle well. Be it alcohol, the ponies, credit or cake.

 

Unfortunately being smart puts some people at a disadvantage in the business world.

[Parrothead]

:confused: Of course. I never said that.

 

I am just pointing out that just because some people advocate the whole no cc angle does not mean, we don't know how it works or have a fear of it.

 

 

I did say, and you quoted my post with it, that I was not speaking specifically of anyone here on these boards when I said some people have fear of credit. Please do not personalize things that are not meant to be directed at any one person.

[5kidsforME]

I agree, it is smart to avoid what one cannot handle well. Be it alcohol, the ponies, credit or cake.

 

Unfortunately being smart puts some people at a disadvantage in the business world.

 

I am trying to figure out where not having good credit or rather excellent credit scores (because of our lack of credit cards) will be bad for us? From what I understand, it takes about 7 years for previous bad credit mistakes (non payment, etc) to be cleared from your credit history. Once that hapens... what do I need to worry about it for?

 

We buy everything with cash. If we can't pay for it with cash we don;t buy it.

[regentrude]

I am trying to figure out where not having good credit or rather excellent credit scores (because of our lack of credit cards) will be bad for us? ... what do I need to worry about it for?

 

We buy everything with cash. If we can't pay for it with cash we don;t buy it.

 

Most people are not able to pay cash for their house.

Should you ever be in the position to need a mortgage, your credit rating will matter.

 

ETA: Credit scores are also used to determine your insurance rates, they are investigated by employers screening candidates, and quite possibly also by landlords (not sure if they can check your credit score when you try to rent)

Edited December 14, 2011 by regentrude

[5kidsforME]

I did say, and you quoted my post with it, that I was not speaking specifically of anyone here on these boards when I said some people have fear of credit. Please do not personalize things that are not meant to be directed at any one person.

 

:confused: Chucki, where are we misunderstanding each other here?

 

I am explaining why some advocate for no cc's. Yes I used my personal experience because most likely my story is very similar to 100's of other people. I can understand what you are saying about other people having a fear of credit cards and not understanding credit in general.

[LeslieAnneLevine]

It's a bad idea--SAHPs, especially women, are vulnerable enough as it is. There is no reason a SAHP cannot have a credit card in her or his name. The credit line doesn't need to be super high and if it's goes unpaid then close the account. If it's paid regularly and on time then the credit limited could gradually be raised. I really doubt that SAHPs are responsible for the bulk of unpaid CC debt.

 

I don't even know what to make of the replies along the lines of "Well that's what you get when choose to be a SAHP". :glare: