No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
@Anonymous wrote:
As a single parent, this really irks me. I mean its tough being a single parent, and you two have the great fortune to be able for you to stay home with your kids. It is such a good, positive thing you are doing and rather than being rewarded for it, you are punished.
That is what we call the unintended consequences of government regulation....well we can at least hope that it was not inteded, although younever know.
Certainly interesting to know if it was intended or not. The stated reason was teenagers claiming their parents income. However, it would seem this could be easily avoided by allowing you to use the combined income of you and your spouse. This is a huge blow to stay at home parents (moms or dads). It makes these people so much more financially reliant on their spouse, which is one common reason people do not leave abusive relationships. Pretty unfortunate part of the new law IMO.
wow... went for dinner, just came back ... thank you for taking the time to reply! I thought how I read into it was correct ... I was just hoping it wasn't or that there was a revolt or something in the works to change it
... I hope it does get amended in the near future ... I understand that there were probably issues from both young and old regarding credit cards, income and responsible debt repayment, but if my husband and I file a joint tax return, the number the government taxes is the number I should be able to put on credit applications.
@Anonymous wrote:How are they going to make that work in cases when 2 people are claiming an ability to pay 2 debts from one income?
This is exactly why I don't think the law will change. It has nothing to do with fairness, but moreso the ability to pay. Credit is inherantly unfair anyways, and this is just one example of that fact.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
As a single parent, this really irks me. I mean its tough being a single parent, and you two have the great fortune to be able for you to stay home with your kids. It is such a good, positive thing you are doing and rather than being rewarded for it, you are punished.
That is what we call the unintended consequences of government regulation....well we can at least hope that it was not inteded, although younever know.Certainly interesting to know if it was intended or not. The stated reason was teenagers claiming their parents income. However, it would seem this could be easily avoided by allowing you to use the combined income of you and your spouse. This is a huge blow to stay at home parents (moms or dads). It makes these people so much more financially reliant on their spouse, which is one common reason people do not leave abusive relationships. Pretty unfortunate part of the new law IMO.
+1!!! This could have easily been avoided just by what you wrote above. And it is scary to think that women may be stuck in a relationship (either abusive, or one they want to leave) because they can't even get credit in their own names. It is really a blow to women's rights IMO.
@mmduluth wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:How are they going to make that work in cases when 2 people are claiming an ability to pay 2 debts from one income?
Like I said, the details are for someone else to figure out. I'm just the brainstormer.
LOL!
I just think we're a little reluctant to admit how easily two people can get over-extended on one income.
@Anonymous wrote:
@mmduluth wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:How are they going to make that work in cases when 2 people are claiming an ability to pay 2 debts from one income?
Like I said, the details are for someone else to figure out. I'm just the brainstormer.
LOL!
I just think we're a little reluctant to admit how easily two people can get over-extended on one income.
Oh there is no doubt about that. I'm just saying that credit is a gable for consumers and CCCs alike. They decide weather or not they want to accept people who have no individual income of their own and look at the financials of the household and decide weather or not they want to extend credit to that individual.
I know kids using their parent's income was a problem. Something like this could be solved by providing proof or marriage or something similar and going from there. I know their are faults in this idea, as there always is, but it seems like there should be SOME way to work something out.
@Anonymous wrote:
@mmduluth wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:How are they going to make that work in cases when 2 people are claiming an ability to pay 2 debts from one income?
Like I said, the details are for someone else to figure out. I'm just the brainstormer.
LOL!
I just think we're a little reluctant to admit how easily two people can get over-extended on one income.
I don't have a problem with this if a CC company chooses not to extend credit in this situation. My problem is that the government made a law preventing them from doing so. CC companies were more than willing to extend credit to stay at home spouses in the past, until Congress told them they weren't allowed any longer. Congress claimed of course this was to prevent college students from getting targeted for cards they couldn't afford, but they either blindly or intentionally skipped over how this would affect stay at home spouses.
On a side note, I know at least one stay at home father. This is not just a women's issue. Surely more women stay at home, but now it certainly isn't 100% one sided.
@Anonymous wrote:On a side note, I know at least one stay at home father. This is not just a women's issue. Surely more women stay at home, but now it certainly isn't 100% one sided.
And they are politicians. Even if the issue was confronted, they'd state some made up statistics about how 98% of more women work 50% more of the time.
Exactly. That's how they sound to me sometimes.
@bichonmom wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
As a single parent, this really irks me. I mean its tough being a single parent, and you two have the great fortune to be able for you to stay home with your kids. It is such a good, positive thing you are doing and rather than being rewarded for it, you are punished.
That is what we call the unintended consequences of government regulation....well we can at least hope that it was not inteded, although younever know.Certainly interesting to know if it was intended or not. The stated reason was teenagers claiming their parents income. However, it would seem this could be easily avoided by allowing you to use the combined income of you and your spouse. This is a huge blow to stay at home parents (moms or dads). It makes these people so much more financially reliant on their spouse, which is one common reason people do not leave abusive relationships. Pretty unfortunate part of the new law IMO.
+1!!! This could have easily been avoided just by what you wrote above. And it is scary to think that women may be stuck in a relationship (either abusive, or one they want to leave) because they can't even get credit in their own names. It is really a blow to women's rights IMO.
This is exactly why FICO backed down on excluding AU cards from scoring in FICO 08 or whichever one it was that they were proposing this (I've lost track, lol.) It was considered a potential violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
I'd like to see a consumer group/ women's group challenge the constitutionality of this one provision on that basis.