The Fed is considering blocking spouses–many of them stay-at-home moms–from holding credit cards based on joint household income.
What? Excuse me, I didn’t realize we’d stepped back into the mid-1900′s. Is there no value to a woman, or a man for that matter, who stays at home with the children, often managing the bacon that the spouse in the work-world is bringing home?
In MSNBC’s post today “Why stay-at-home moms are mad at the Fed” the considerations of the Fed are given as a rationalization that those without their own independent income may be considered risky in terms of access to their spouse’s credit.
The resulting comments are worthy of reading and consideration. Although I didn’t have time to read them all, I absorbed several and have to say these comments took my immediate anger to understanding back to frustration about the whole topic in about five minutes.
I was surprised by comments from women, like this one, supporting the Fed’s stance:
Although I agree with the idea that the household income is joint income because she is bearing the entire role of child rearing/ maintaining the household and that is her “job”, I also see that someone has to be responsible for the debt, and that person has to be the one that is earning the wages. There is no disgrace in having your husband sign the credit card application, especially if you are relying on him to be the sole financial support of your family. I did not feel degraded by this, and quite frankly, being able to stay home and raise my kids was such a privilage, I still feel very blessed I had that opportunity.
and the opposing viewpoint:
…stay at home mom pays all the bills, cooks all the meals, and in general, keeps her family in the black while husband works 70+ hour a week job.
and this valid comment about stay-at-home dads:
Why is this all about women spending/men working? Stay-at-home dads will run into the same issue! For those who are making the argument that women (or men) can still get credit if their spouse co-signs, what about military families where one spouse (generally the one with the income) is deployed overseas and can’t be available to co-sign?
finally, at the risk of wearing my gentle reader out, this interesting viewpoint:
I was fortunate to have a mother who fell in your description of 2.1 and kept us financially solvent through layoffs, recessions and subsequent wind down of the wood products industry. There was always food on the table, the vehicles were paid for and the rent and utilities paid, despite everything. She worked as hard at managing the home economics as my father did in the mill. And thankfully he knew a good thing and left the finances to her as he would have been hopeless at it.
I’m kind of torn now, reading these. What do you think, Richmond?
About Kate Hall
I don't use a credit card so I guess my point is invalid, but I don't understand where it is the Feds business to tell someone they can't have a card. Shouldn't that be up to the lender who ultimately will or will not get their money back? Frustrating subject, in deed, now I will go back to spending my husbands hard earned cash, with our debit card or check book.
Why are you torn? Treating a non-wage earning spouse as a child is absolutely ludicrous! Having an income and having the ability to stay out of debt are two entirely different constructs. In fact, some of the people I know with great amounts of debts are also some of the people I know with very high incomes. The bottom line is that all people need to remember not to spend money that they don't have. The Federal government cannot legislate common sense.
Jennifer, I think it was the comment about a non-wage-earning spouse running up credit cards unbeknownst to the working spouse that got me thinking about this in a different way. In an ideal world everyone should be given the opportunity to have credit, I agree–but that point made me a bit more concerned. I haven’t been able to make up my mind on this one, but it concerns me!
I think it is a real shame that my rights to have credit would be torn away from me because I chose to turn in my career to stay home. My credit score is actually higher than my husband's. What would happen if he died or we divorced. My children and myself would be in a real financial jeopardy if I were not allowed to have credit. Fortunately, I pay for almost nothing on credit, other than our mortgage. Anyhow, I disagree with the logic for the ruling by the Fed.
I'm not trying to single-handedly burden our household with more debt. I aim to spend wisely.
I don't need the Fed to give me spending power or validate my importance. My amazing husband does that. His hard work enables me to be a stay-at-home mom. He trusts me to manage the $$ that he brings home. He applies for credit and lists me as a joint user. We got married so that we could spend our lives together. We also spend our money together.
The Fed thinks that I shouldn't incur debt unless my husband is willing to back my promise to repay. That's not insulting, that's smart.
Way back in the 1950s when the wage-earner was required to co-sign, most marriages were made to last and most of society recognized the value of a stay-at-home mom. Was that so bad?
More credit card debt does not make a person more happy. Having a husband who is willing to sign his name to show the world that he's on my side — priceless.
Borrowing money is not a "right". Good credit is not promised to us in the Constitution, or anywhere else. We borrow money because we can't seem to wait until we can pay cash for what we need or wish to have. (I know that sometimes the need is real, and credit is VERY helpful for smoothing out bumps in the road of life.) Good credit is something that is earned when we pay back what we owe when it is due. Credit card companies don't know you from Adam & Eve. For them it's all about risk, based on various numbers. Why should they lend $$ to anyone who cannot prove that they could pay it back?
How is the fed stopping women from having credit cards? It's not — it's stopping people without income from having cards, regardless of their gender. It's just a fact of life in this world that homework isn't paid work — not for working parents, not for stay-at-home parents – and if you're not paid, you're going to have trouble getting credit. Of course work done in the home has value — but it's not a cash producer, whether done by men, women, working mothers or working fathers. Far from being a sexist decision, this is a completely gender neutral decision by the fed. Given the recent credit issues in this country, I think it makes a lot of sense. I suspect my opinion will not be popular here, however.
One of the problems with the 1950s model where the stay-at-home wives and mothers could only be authorized users on their husband's accounts was that if/when the husbands died, the charge accounts were often canceled, rather than transferred to the surviving spouse. So, even if the wife had shopped with the store card and paid all the bills for years and years, she was at square one as a widow. When I read this article, as well as the link, I wondered what would be next if this actually happens. Will the powers that be decide that non-wage-earning spouses can't be co-borrowers for a car loan or a mortgage? What all of this basically comes down to for me is that household income is joint income, and the Fed should acknowledge and respect that.