Does The New CardAct Law Discriminate Against Stay At Home Parents?

Have you read about the CardACT legislation that went into effect, October 1, 2011? If not, read up here:

The Federal Reserve’s rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual’s own salary or other income — rather than combined household income — can be considered.

One major effect of the new regulation: Stay-at-home moms (or dads) without significant outside income no longer will be able to open their own credit card accounts — and establish their own credit histories to build their credit scores. Compliance with the rule became mandatory Oct. 1, 2011.

Read more:

During the first few months that the new law went into effect, there was heated backlash against the Obama administration on the basis that it discriminates against women who happen to be stay at home parents (stay at home dads too) and women in abusive situations. For the purpose of this article and to stay in line with the theme of this bog, I will focus on the effect on women.

The Backlash

Dissenters say that this law takes the women’s movement back 50 years because now women would be put in a position to ask their husbands or partners to get them a credit card.

Anisha Sekar, chief content manager and credit card industry analyst for NerdWallet.com, commented on LearnVest.com that this bill undermines the contributions of stay-at-home parents:

As far as I’m concerned, a stay-at-home mom works just as hard as (or harder than) her spouse—she just doesn’t file her income with the IRS. She is also likely to make the household’s financial decisions, from paying for groceries to saving for college to dealing with medical bills. So why is she relegated to second-class citizenship, a subordinate who can only get a credit card with her husband’s say?- Mommyish

I couldn’t disagree more and here’s why.

My Thoughts

Those are things mothers would do regardless of whether or not they worked a day job. It comes with the territory of being a mom. I value very much the work that mothers do in the home but the harsh reality that many of us seem to dodge intentionally, is that work in the home does not translate into a real paycheck that the bank can use in the event of a default. This is not second-class citizenship, welcome to adulthood. We can’t cry about inequalities and then balk when laws like this level the playing field.

The women’s suffrage movement worked hard so that women today would have the luxury of choice. For the purposes of this article, that would be the choice to stay home or work a day job. As with all choices in life, there are intended and unintended consequences. Women all over the world who choose to work out of the home contend with spending more quality time with their children vs working to earn a living to support their family. Women who choose to stay at home must wrestle with maybe one day having to return to the workplace and competing with others who have more current and up to date skill-sets given their absence from the job market.

No one likes to talk about this but those are the harsh realities of the choices we make as women.

There will always be unintended consequences that we struggle with in order to make this life we live in work. What grates my feminist nerves is when I see women reacting to this new law as if they’re newly slayed victims on the gauntlet.

Choice vs Risk vs Consequences

Women make the choice to stay at home with their children and depend on their partner’s income. That’s a decision they made, not this new law. If you want to be able to get a credit card in your name, here’s a novel idea-get a job and earn your own money so that you can qualify on a credit application. Harsh, I know, but it has to be said since so many news outlets seem to be coddling our egos by supporting the idea that we are the new victims as a result of this law.

The card act states that creditors must consider a consumer’s ability to pay before extending credit. The intent, says the Fed, is to keep consumers from taking on unaffordable debt. And to do that, the Fed concludes, credit should be granted based on the applicant’s income, not the income of someone who won’t be legally responsible to pay the card bills.-Baltimore Sun

I support the banks lending to consumers who have the individual ability to pay them back. Would you lend $10,000 to an individual who has not demonstrated that they are able to pay back the debt? Why would the banks and other lending institutions risk their capital by leveraging 1 salary twice? Once for the wage earner and second for the person who does not? What if you and your spouse separate? Divorce? Who does the bank go after now that you’re newly divorced with no job or maybe you have a new job and struggling to get back on your feet with kids to feed? Choosing to stay at home is a lifestyle choice with the intended consequences as they were there before you decided to stay at home.

Let’s be serious ladies. This law does not force you to ask your husband for a credit card.

1. You don’t need a credit card

2. If you want one, under this new law, you’ll need to get a job so that you have your own income and when you have your own income then you can get your own credit card.

3. Toughen up. This is why the women’s suffrage movement went down the way it did. It resulted in many of us having choices that we did not have over half a century ago. If we don’t like it then we have the choice to go back to work and get in line with the new law and the requirements.

4. For the women in abusive relationships? A credit card won’t help you get out. Every situation is different, and a credit card isn’t the key that opens the door to freedom. The carefully planned decision to leave will as the real problem is the attachment to their abuser which clouds their ability to craft an exit.

I could go on and on but I will leave you something I my mom taught me years ago:

“Women often work hard at teaching their children the art of being independent while abdicating that responsibility to themselves”

The reality is, the blog and news outlets that coddle you into being a victim do so because it gets them page views and social media mentions. By encouraging this mindset, you never really think about the idea that you can earn your own money and if you choose, get a credit card in your name. Once you do that, there is no story and we all carry on like happy and responsible adults.

Interview At FounderTips.com

Being Poor Is Expensive, Can You Afford It?

Place your ad here
Loading...

Additional Posts

About the Author

GingerGirls Just Wanna Have Funds is a personal finance website dedicated to educating and empowering women in the area of personal finance. Our articles center on money management: making it, saving it and growing it which supports our theme: Breaking Financial Ceilings One Stiletto At A Time. We have been featured in Business Insider (contributor), Lifehacker, Consumerist, MSNBC, Essence, Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America and MSN Project Engage Web Series. I believe in a future where women can have financial freedom and choose the life they want to live by taking control of their finances. You only need to want it hard enough while letting go of limiting beliefs around money. Join me as I share tips that will help you light up your financial life and take control.View all posts by Ginger →

KBham

I definitely see a catch 22 here. A woman who goes to work just for the sake of “being prepared” for anything to happen, even if financially it makes more sense for her to stay home and provide child care herself, may actually be putting herself at a greater risk for getting a divorce because people with financial issues, with less total income for the household compared to the quality of life the family wants to live, are at greater risk of getting divorced. The family should be doing financially what is best for the family, not assuming they could get divorced latter when they have a healthy marriage. Divorce doesn’t just happen out of the blue like death or being lade off can, it takes a marriage falling apart AND both parties choosing to leave that marriage. It is the high divorce rates that make stay at home Moms look risky for credit lenders. But putting unnecessary financial barriers on people are actually helping to sustain the divorce rate!
Elizabeth Price

I completely disagree with you. This law does discriminate. The credit card companies can attach my husband’s income for any debt I accrue while I am married to him, so the new law serves no purpose at all. Just because I “earn” my income indirectly by taking care of my husband’s household, children, appointments, etc. while he is at his outside job doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have the same access to financial resources that he does.
I agree that nobody “needs” a credit card, at least not directly, but unfortunately it’s important in order to be able to establish a credit history in our economic system. No, you don’t need a credit card to leave an abusive or damaging relationship, but you DO need to be able to get a car, an apartment, a phone, etc., and the lack of ability to establish a solid credit history can seriously hinder the options a stay-at-home partner has if she (or he) needs to strike out alone, whether that’s because of a break-down in the relationship or even death.
Can I get around this by becoming my husband’s household employee and taking part of his paycheck as payment for my services as a cook, nanny, dog sitter, laundry woman, and secretary?
Elizabeth Price

I completely disagree with you. This law does discriminate. The credit card companies can attach my husband’s income for any debt I accrue while I am married to him, so the new law serves no purpose at all. Just because I “earn” my income indirectly by taking care of my husband’s household, children, appointments, etc. while he is at his outside job doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have the same access to financial resources that he does.
I agree that nobody “needs” a credit card, at least not directly, but unfortunately it’s important in order to be able to establish a credit history in our economic system. No, you don’t need a credit card to leave an abusive or damaging relationship, but you DO need to be able to get a car, an apartment, a phone, etc., and the lack of ability to establish a solid credit history can seriously hinder the options a stay-at-home partner has if she (or he) needs to strike out alone, whether that’s because of a break-down in the relationship or even death.
Can I get around this by becoming my husband’s household employee and taking part of his paycheck as payment for my services as a cook, nanny, dog sitter, laundry woman, and secretary?
HBACingMama

I have yet to see anyone answer this point brought up by TFB:

“If I have to claim my husband’s financial information to determine my
EFC on my FAFSA app, then I should absolutely be able to claim it on any
other loan application. ”

“Counting his income AGAINST me for scholarships and grants, and then NOT
counting his income FOR me to determine borrowing power is a total
double standard and completely discriminatory.”

Anyone?

HBACingMama

**crickets chirping**

Nobody?

http://absolutlyfit.blogspot.com Laura

Ginger, I am SO glad you took this stance – it’s a tough one to take without getting criticized by SAHMs who want to stand up for themselves.
Kaywren

Stay at home parent is not always a choice. If what you make is less than the cost of daycare. It’s not a choice.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

Thank you. That is a key point that many are choosing to ignore.
Theirmommy88

Exactly. I had no choice but to stay home.

Anon

Wow?!?! Really? You are out of touch with the realities of life. Women who stay at home need to have the spouses income count for their credit histories for many of the same reasons you say they shouldn’t. I remember my mother having to take a small loan out just build credit becuase at the time my father’s credit did not count towards her credit. If there are two adults in a couple supported by one income chances are that the stay at home adult (male or female) does plenty to contribute to the others adults ability to earn their income — childcare, food prep, house cleaning, laundry … doesn’t matter if they aren’t paid for it. If the other person had to pay for it, it would dig into their income. Also it is not always are choice to stay at home. If the wage earning spouse’s job moves them often (think military), the other spouse is often dragged along for the ride to a place where there are no jobs.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

Who pays for the bill if they get divorced? I’m reading a lot of kumbah yah we are one, but every one seems to be ignoring the issue of who pays the bill should the husband’s income no longer be available to the woman?

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

Who pays the bill when someone with a job get fired? You still refuse to answer this question.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

I didn’t refuse to answer the question as I am answering it here: When someone gets fired, tax payers pay the bill IF that person is eligible for unemployment until they find a new job.

I’ve answered yours. Answer mine. Who pays the bill when a woman gets divorced and has no job to pay her bills that she incurred on her husband’s income?

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

IF that person is eligible for unemployment. And if the person is not?

As Andrea said, and as I’ve answered elsewhere, if a woman gets divorced, she gets a job. Or, same as with your unemployed unmarried person, if she qualifies for government assistance, she uses that.

Notice how the answer is the same whether the person was married or not?

So why are you only discriminating against married stay-at-home parents?

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

How does that analogy connect to the isue here with women? You cannot use your government assistance to pay a credit card bill. Unemployment? Based on what job? If a SAHM is newly single she can’t claim unemployment.

Married or not-the same applies so Im not sure why you are intentionally missing the point and twisting my words.

Guest

I’m just going to throw this out there, most towns have a community action center that will help you pay bills if you can not make a payment one month. Especially if you have children. If the woman has bills to pay, she can reach out for help if she needs it. There is also food stamps she could apply for. Unemployment isn’t the only form of government assistance. If she is granted custody of her children, she will hopefully get court mandated child support. This is not always the case, but it is what the judicial system wants for the custodial parent. If she can utilize online sites such as craigslist, ebay, etsy etc to help get some extra cash, wonderful. Also, if she knows a trade or skill, it could help her get a job that much quicker.

And to answer your question “Who pays the bill when a woman gets divorced and has no job to pay her bills that she incurred on her husband’s income?”

If the bills are in her name, she pays them. She takes out a loan, she sells something she owns, she does whatever she can. If the credit card is in her name, even if she gets it while married and uses household money to pay for it, after she gets divorced it does not change names and become her ex-husband’s responsibility. If she needs to get government aid to do so, fine.

http://www.sooverdebt.com Andrea @ SoOverDebt

If they get divorced, I’m assuming the woman would get a job and/or receive alimony. Unless housing and food are going to fall out of the sky, that is. So if her husband’s income was no longer available, it’s likely that she would have income of her own.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

Not always. Unless she is able to afford a good divorce attorney and it is often the case that if she has not been working then she cannot- no that doesn’t happen.

MAny of us are thinking of situations where the woman continues to have access to the money through the process via child support. But when you separate and the guy waits for the divorce proceedings to pay for anything, yep she is @$$ed out until the courts make him pay-IF they do.

http://www.sooverdebt.com Andrea @ SoOverDebt

As a divorced person who has never received child support OR alimony, though, I can tell you what happens. You get a job, because without it you don’t eat. You pay your bills, because if you don’t, your credit is ruined. (In my case it was already ruined, but still.) You don’t sit around waiting for money that may never materialize – you get up and go to work. I don’t see why that income wouldn’t allow a woman to make her credit card payments – I never missed one when I still had credit card debt.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

How long did it take you to find a job? Were you working while married? You’d be surprised how many women dont find a job as fast since they have no recent working history.

http://www.sooverdebt.com Andrea @ SoOverDebt

I had a work history, but I was not working at the time that we separated. It took me about 2 months to find a job. In the meantime, though, we had already separated our finances and I had to figure out how to pay my bills. I sold a ton of stuff on eBay to make sure I could pay my bills in the interim – if I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have been able to buy groceries or keep the electricity turned on.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

”
work in the home does not translate into a real paycheck that the bank can use in the event of a default. ”

If I do not stay home with my child, I have to PAY someone else to do it. When I stay home with my child, I am saving our household money. If I work full-time, I may even PAY someone else to help me with the housework.

When my husband and I made the decision to change my work schedule from full-time to part-time, we did it because working full-time cost us too much in day care expenses. Right now, I don’t think my working outside the house earns any income to the household, between what we pay in childcare and what I spend in gas getting my child to daycare and then driving myself to work.

Stay-at-home moms are not staying home to paint their nails, they are doing WORK which, when done by someone other than the parent, is PAID. The stay-at-home mom/wife is not a financial drain on the father/husband, she is a resource for him. She is doing the WORK of raising his children, work he would have to PAY someone else to do if she were not staying home to do it.

The work the woman does benefits the HOUSEHOLD, which is why, when the woman’s credit card bill arrives, the HOUSEHOLD pays that bill, with the money earned by the husband. That’s what that whole “marriage partnership” thing is about.

Perhaps the solution is for the working-outside-the-home parent to pay the stay-at-home parent. Issue a paycheck, the same way one would be given if the child were being cared for outside the home, by a non-parent. (Which would be grand, considering the working-outside-the-home parent would get to pay taxes in hir income twice — the first time when hir employer takes out taxes, and then again when ze “pays” hir spouse for “daycare and cleaning/cooking/laundry services”…)

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

You might be on to something! Im no tax professional but maybe hiring the SAHM as a contractor for household services might work. Certainly something to check with the IRS about before moving forward though…

Why not?

Household Management Services as a sole proprietor… hey you never know! Im sure some tax pro will chime on! I’ll see if Kay Bell can come in and answer this for us.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

“Why not?”

Because it’s harassment. It forces families to jump through extra hoops for something that should be automatically understood — something that IS automatically understood, as TheFeministBreeder pointed out, when I want to receive financial aid from the same government that is making up this ridiculous, poorly-thought-out credit card law.

Parents have enough crap to deal with. Now they have to register as an employer, get an EIN, track FUTA, Medicare, FICA taxes, just so their spouse can be treated like an equal human being?

Not to mention PAYING TAXES ON THE WOTH SPOUSE’S INCOME *TWICE*.

Please.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

It is understood within the bounds of the personal agreement that you have within your household. However, that should not then force other business to bend and comply because it works for you.

Answer my question- who pays for the bill when it is in her name and lets say she gets divorced or separates from her husband? That seems to get ignored as we move through the discussion.

I see your points, and might even agree with some of them but these are how the chips lay right now. Until then, how do stay at home parents address the issue that if they get divorced that she will have a difficult time paying the bill?

Who pays?

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

What is “understood within the bounds of the personal agreement that you have within your household”? I have no idea what you are responding or referring to.

What happens when someone who had a job when they applied for a credit card loses that job? Who pays the bill then?

Usually, that person tries to go out and get another job.

When a couple divorces, they split their assets. And their joint debt. If the credit card was used to buy pretty new shoes for the wife, then she is responsible for that debt. She tries to go out and get another job — same as any single person with a credit card who gets fired.

If the credit card was used to purchase HOUSEHOLD items, then the divorcing couple split the bill.

Then each party finds a way to make income to pay the bill.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

That does not always happen. Many women who cannot afford a good divorce attorney get screwed in the divorce process.

Often what happens is she gets stuck with all of the debt because it is in her name.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

So because of the percentage of stay-at-home mothers who will get divorced and not have enough money to pay for an attorney and whose husband will mercilessly screw them out of child support, NO stay-at-home parent should be allowed to have a credit card in hir name?

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

They can get credit if they start a home based business-novel idea! Get the best of both worlds!

http://www.sooverdebt.com Andrea @ SoOverDebt

I’m not sure how I feel about this one. On one hand, I agree that staying home is a choice and that credit should be extended to those who demonstrate the ability to pay it back.

On the other hand, though, I feel like this just encourages people to lie on credit applications. When I got my very first card, I was still in high school and didn’t even have a job. I wrote down my grandfather as my employer and made up a salary. Did anyone check? Nope! I was approved with a $1k credit limit, which was raised to $2500 after a few months. I could see this happening a lot more with women feeling like they have no other choice to get their own credit cards.

I also don’t feel that having a job at the time of application is a good indicator of ability to repay. In this economy, there is no guarantee that a person will remain employed TOMORROW, much less for the number of years it could take to pay off a balance.

So I don’t know – I’m really conflicted. Personally, I think credit should be harder to access, period. I know things have changed since I turned 18, but considering the fact that I was approved for another card with a $1k limit in 2011 (after bankruptcy in 2007 and a horrendous credit score), I think stay at home moms should be the least of the banks’ worries.
Melisa

Another thing that has not been discussed with regard to stay at home moms having access to credit, is that they can get a credit card through being an authorized user on their spouse’s credit card account, so they won’t be completely without the ability to get a credit card. Also, I would think that most women would have had a at some sort of credit card before becoming a stay at home mom…

http://twitter.com/FeministBreeder TheFeministBreeder

Being an authorized user on someone else’s card is not the same as having your own credit. Having your own separate credit line raises YOUR score. Being an authorized user on somebody else’s card doesn’t do that. My husband and I have been working for years to build up our own individual credit because I used to have NO credit, and it hurt us BOTH. He now benefits from me having better credit. We get cheaper loans with two signers with good credit. We won an apartment because of our good credit (we had to beat out ten other couples whose credit didn’t match up to our two high scores.) Women not being able to have their own cards and their own limits just because their income is tied to their spouse is a HUGE lose for women, and a HUGE setback for both women and their partners.

Melisa

I understand your point, but as along as the law is in effect, a spouse who chooses to stay home may then have to be strategic and get a credit card before leaving the work force and I am sure there will be work arounds.

vanessa reyes

I don’t know…I have credit cards at 21 because I’ve worked since I was 16 but I’m getting married to a man that doesnt have good credit due to past circumstances. I’m currently a student and we have two kids…I no longer have a job and won’t probably until I finish grad school in two years. Based solely on my future husbands credit we would never be aproved for a loan or a credit card. I don’t think that I should be pigeon holed because of his credit. What if i hadn’t applied for credit cards before we married in order to build my credit. What would WE as a couple do since be has bad credit. I don’t think this is a smart rule especially considering the economy as a whole. There isn’t a reason why stay at home parents should be singled out when people are losing jobs left and right. I’m not even going to touch the women in abusive relationships issue because I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with your view.

vanessa reyes

BTW my response was to the author not melisa, sorry on my phone

http://twitter.com/FeministBreeder TheFeministBreeder

I disagree completely. Women need their own credit – even if they are sharing income with their spouse. The only way to have credit is to have credit lines and credit cards. If you don’t use your credit, you lose it. And my credit limits benefit my partner and our shared financial well-being. When one of the partners chooses to stay home, it is understood that the other partner’s income is household income – it doesn’t belong only to the person going to the job, just like my income was never just mine when I worked. It went into a pot. Women save the household a lot of money by staying home. It would cost my husband $3000 a month for daycare for our three kids. By staying home, I save us both money, not only on daycare, but many related expenses. His income is OUR income – that’s the deal we made when WE agreed for me to give up my well-paying job to focus on kids and a start-up business. If you have to, think of it as him paying me to stay home. Either way, He and I both still need for me to have my own creditworthyness, and not allowing women to rely on household income puts us at an absolute disadvantage. I guarantee the Suffragists did not march so that women would be looked at as though they weren’t contributing because they made the choice to stay home.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

While I respect everything you’ve referenced as far as your personal situation, that is a personal decision and agreement that you and your partner made which does not lend itself to the criteria for being approved for a credit card.

That’s where I take issue with stay at home parents and this new law. You made a decision and that decision shouldn’t then put the bank at more risk becuse you “feel” they should bend in this regard.

You have the right to make the decision but there are consequences like this one which force women to work for a living if they want to be granted credit. It puts women at a disadvantage because of the CHOICE they have made not to work.

http://twitter.com/FeministBreeder TheFeministBreeder

But you assume that a woman doesn’t have the ability to pay back a loan just because she isn’t the one going to a job. If her husband’s money is her money, how does that mean she’s putting the bank at a higher risk? There’s no reason that a stay-at-home parent would be at risk for default as long as there’s household income to cover it. Household income IS her income.

I would be pretty ticked off if I were the one bringing in all the money and my husband couldn’t get credit because of it. It doesn’t do couples any good for one of them to be without credit when they want to buy a home.

All of this sounds like a way to wag a finger at women (or men) who choose to stay home and insist that they’re not pulling their weight or something when in fact it’s the exact opposite. If you want kids, somebody has to raise them, and it’s usually just cheaper for one person to stay home and do that. These “consequences” that keep being made up seem more like punishments that don’t even make good financial sense.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

Yes, SHE does not have the money to repay the bank. That is my point. That isnt an assumption but it is a fact. She has the money to pay it so long as she is married. Women get divorced, separated, financially abused daily in this country. Is it that far fetched for a bank to want the person borrowing the money to have the means to repay it regardless of what happens in their marriage? I don’t think so.

Would you lend money to a stranger off the street that didnt have a job to pay it back?

The household income, I agree is in theory as a personal agreement between she and her husband, yes her money as well. Im all for that. However, the bank’s position is that she will need her own source of income in order to cover the obligation should something happen to her and her husband’s money is no longer available to her. And the reality is that it happens every day, even moreso now during a recession.

I don’t see them as punishment but it’s life, you have to do what you need to do in order to make it work. I never said women who stay at home don’t pull their weight. If you feel that way that is on you, I even clarified that in my post. However, it doesnt translate into a pay check and you cant force a personal agreement to dominate a business transaction.

http://twitter.com/FeministBreeder TheFeministBreeder

Again, I really cannot understand why you think that a partner’s paycheck is only that person’s money. The court system doesn’t even think that. This is why there’s such a thing as alimony and child support, and a standard of living. This is why married people can file joint tax returns. According to the government, my money and my husband’s money is in a pot. His money is ALWAYS seen as my money when I’m entering my FAFSA student loan info, and for all other purposes. It’s a factual inaccuracy to state that a SAHM doesn’t have an income to rely on. If I have to claim my husband’s financial information to determine my EFC on my FAFSA app, then I should absolutely be able to claim it on any other loan application. According to the federal government, his income determines my ability to pay for school, so it should also determine my ability to pay back a loan. The Fed isn’t thinking “Well, let’s not count his income against her since they may get divorced before she gets done with school.”

Counting his income AGAINST me for scholarships and grants, and then NOT counting his income FOR me to determine borrowing power is a total double standard and completely discriminatory. It absolutely puts women at a major disadvantage.

Anon

I agree that’s a double standard regarding financial aid for school and then for credit, but then again, financial aid has always been unfair anyway.

There is discrimination/unfairness occurs for young people as well–you must include
your parents’ incomes if you are under 24, although there is no legal basis
that your debt/income (after 18 years old) is your parents’ debt/income also
(unless they cosigned a loan for you). As a result of this little rule, I made it through school working 3
crappy jobs and eating a lot of ramen. I had to rely on scholarships and my own
below-poverty income to pay for tuition, books, rent, bills, etc. I wasn’t a
dependent on my parents’ taxes, and I wasn’t even on my parents’ insurance
plans.My guess as to why they did this was that there was no way to prove financial independence and
in the past, students/families had perhaps abused it, and so the federal government, in its
divine wisdom, decided to include your parents’ income up until you were 24
without making it a law that parents MUST help their children through college
until 24… Just a nice little assumption they threw out there and that millions of young students have to deal with. I had also assumed that the government was implying to me that both education was a privilege and not a right and also that financial aid was “extra” help they did (again a privilege, not a right), so they could make up whatever rules they wanted regarding who they would help.So yes, depending on the actual situation, it may be unfair to consider your spouse’s income as yours when it comes to grants but this
happens because they assume (just like the parent-child case), that he is
supporting you or contributing to the household–whether or not he actually is. In the case of marriage though, I
would HOPE at least that is case (that the spouses support each other) and there is
more legal backing for this depending on the state you live in. If that was NOT the case and it was me, I
would consider a divorce…Regarding “Again, I really cannot understand why you think that a partner’s paycheck is only that person’s money. The court system doesn’t even think that. ”, I think this depends on the state you live in. In community property states debt & income by either spouse is considered jointly owned. In common law states, debt is only joint if both spouses signed for it or if it was incurred for the benefit of the entire household. Income is only considered owned by both only if in kept a joint account, so in these states, legally, both spouses could have each their own separate incomes.Regardless, it is a double standard. And I do see both sides on the original issue.They enacted this to try to prevent people from getting credit limits & possibly debt beyond their means to repay. I think the first question should be really “Do we as consumers need this protection?” which is an argument I think that could last forever. So, just going on the intention, I believe they need to adjust the law such that in community property states, it can be the income of both spouses since both spouses own all income & debts jointly. But then also, as far as credit checks (they normally check your income versus your current credit lines & debts), they would have to look at both credit reports to determine your limit (they may do this already, I am not sure). In common law states, it would be a little hard to determine what income is who’s, but probably allowing 1/3-2/3 of the total household income would be fair. In lieu of this, they need to change the law that married couples must apply for JOINT credit cards so then they are both legally obligated to the debt no matter what (even after divorce), so then both incomes could be used more easily. Again, then checking both parties’ credit reports may be inline.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

”
Women get divorced, separated, financially abused daily in this country. ”

Women, and men, also get fired from jobs “daily in this country.” They also die. Or get hit by a truck and lose the ability to work. So? They still get a credit card if they were employed at the time they applied for the card.

Why are you discriminating against married women?

It is MUCH more likely for me to be fired from my job than for me to get divorced.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

In your world yes, but everyone else’s mileage varies. I am married myself so I have no discrimination or any intended discrimination towards married women. Not at all.

Men and women also get divorced DAILY in this country. Even moreso when 1 partner loses a job and financial problems come about…when the SAHP gets that credit card in her name using her husband’s income….who pays the bill? No one has answered that question yet.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

When the SAHP gets a student loan in hir name, using spouse’s income on the FAFSA, graduates, then the couple divorces? Who pays that bill?

When any person gets a credit card, then gets fired, or downsized, or — as is likely about to happen to me — the government cuts the budget for that grant-funded program and the grant is not renewed, who pays that bill?

(When you say, “in this country,” are you referring to the US? If so, have you not noticed the recession, and the obscene number of layoffs and people losing their jobs? I would love to see a comparison of the number of married parents who have lost their job, and the number of married couples with children where one parent stays home to care for the children who have divorced in the last five years or so.)

Why is this only a question being asked FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS, in this case stay-at-home mothers? The fact that you ask the question you did, ignoring the others, is discriminating against married women. (The fact that you are also a married woman is completely irrelevant. Women can often be the worst misogynists.)

When a couple divorces, the woman is not chucked out on the curb and left sitting next to the trash. The couple must divide their assets. If there are children, the couple must decide custody, and child support. And alimony, if applicable.

And, when life situations change, people adjust in their lives. That woman who was a stay-at-home mom will probably go out and get a job, since she is no longer a member of a household where her partner is handling the paycheck and she is handling the everything else.

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

“When a couple divorces, the woman is not chucked out on the curb and
left sitting next to the trash. The couple must divide their assets. If
there are children, the couple must decide custody, and child support.
And alimony, if applicable.”

Im not sure what world you live in but yes women are thrown out every day and left to fend for themselves during a separation or divorce.

I happen to run an organization that services these women in so I know first hand on a business level and a personal level having taken in friends whose marriages fell apart. It happens. Daily. go volunteer at a DV shelter in a major city and then report back.

These women don’t often get alimony or child support as they have to pay a lawyer to be represented properly in court. You say yep, but with what money?

Furthermore, what bill? If the grant is not renewed, services stop being rendered and the contract is terminated. There is no bill to speak of. I live in the Wash DC area where govt contracts abound. That’s how it goes down. There is no bill to speak of.

http://twitter.com/c4shay Criss

Thank you, I am familiar with women being victims of abuse and being taken advantage of by their husband, then left to fend for themselves. Something this credit card bill is helping perpetuate, by not allowing women to grow their own credit in their own name. Having all of your assets in your husband’s name is a really good way to end up on the curb.

Getting divorced does take money (been there, paid that — and mine was a very simple, childless divorce). It’s probably going to be much harder to find a lawyer if you don’t even have a credit card in your name.

The issue of women not being able to afford a good enough lawyer to get the child support and alimony they deserve is a completely separate issue, which takes at least one whole other blog post to cover.

Your stance seems to be “Women are going to get screwed over financially and otherwise by abusive, overbearing husbands, so they should be prepared for that and get used to it starting early — no credit cards for wives!” Sorry, but I do not find this acceptable.

Women need to be able to be financially independent, and this law is taking a huge step back. Yes, there are several other issues affecting women financially, and there is much work to be done to ensure women’s rights and finances are protected in the case of divorce, especially for women who lack the resources or the knowledge to find resources to help them through a divorce, but this blog post is addressing the credit card law, which does nothing but exacerbate the problems you mentioned.

“Furthermore, what bill?”
The credit card bill you keep asking about.

The grant I mentioned is the one that pays my paycheck. Yes, services stop being rendered and my contract is terminated, and I lose my job. It won’t affect me as much as it will affect my unmarried coworkers, who will lose their sole household income. How will they pay their credit card bills?

(Hint: same as everyone else. They’ll try to get a job. Which is the same thing a divorced, former SAHM would do.)

http://www.girlsjustwannahaveufunds.com/ Ginger-GirlsJustWannaHaveFunds

You’re painting a canvas with a broad brush and it all doesnt quite apply.

1. Preparing yourself to stay at home by obtaining credit is a good way tos tart out but this isn’t always possible. The govt isnt keeping women in abusive relationships. The attachment to the abuser is what keeps them there. I should know since I am a licensed psychotherapist and I see them in therapy daily.

2. If she is getting divorced and needs a lawyer then perhaps if she was working she would be able to afford that. A credit card used to pay the lawyer puts her further in debt and I don’t know about you but I know that divorces can be costly. Even more than the cost of a lawyer.

3. That is not my stance. My stance is that every adult woman should be prepared for the unexpected as best as she can.

4. The difference between you and your coworkers and a SAHM is that you and your coworkers have recent work histories. A SAHM does not and therefore has a harder time finding a job.

You still never answered my question about who pays the bill.
Guest

She does.
Shark

For the record, i’m against credit cards in general and think that no one should bother getting one. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. But, as far as the company not granting them to spouses with “no income of their own” because they don’t have the means to pay, i’m with the woman who tried to tell you that his income IS her income. This doesn’t disappear if they divorce. Married couples are JOINTLY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for each other’s debts. This means that if a credit card company grants a card to a non-income earning spouse, the income-earning spouse IS responsible for the debt. This is even true for debt accumulated by one person before they marry. (It’s one reason why some people don’t get legally married- so that they are not responsible for their unspouse’s previously-accrued debt.) Your point about the SAHM’s lack of financial capacity is invalid, because TheFeministBreeder is right, and not just about her own situation. Legally, their income is shared and they are both responsible for any and all debts. The company could definitely collect if they divorced.