Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[hadespussercats]

And, this line shows you're not understanding the CARD Act in this regarding, "If you don't want to share that sort of financial risk with someone, or if you don't trust them with shared assets/liabilities, you probably just shouldn't get married. At least, not legally. And certainly not without an extensive and detailed prenup."

The CARD Act doesn't protect the wage-earning spouse. prior to the CARD Act, I as a nonwage earning spouse could go to a credit card company, fill out the family income including my spouse's income, sign on the dotted line and get a $10,000 credit line. I could run it up, and not pay it. The credit card company could come after me, BUT NOT THE WAGE EARNING SPOUSE. Think about that. They extended the line of credit based on my wage earning spouse's income, but they can't go after the wage earning spouse for the money because the wage earning spouse did not sign the application for credit. So, what did the CARD Act do -- it said that if you're going to use the joint income as the basis for a credit limit on a card, then both of the persons whose income is being evaluated have to sign the application. That doesn't have anything to do with trusting or not trusting one or the other spouse. Does it? If you still think it does, you're going to have to explain it.

I did explain this, but okay, one last time:

If a couple is married, and the money a wage-earning spouse brings home belongs to both spouses, then both spouses should be able to declare it as income. And both spouses should be liable for claims against it. And whether one spouse agrees with the choices of the other spouse is between them-- quite literally, no one else's business.

I agree. But, if both spouses don't sign the credit card application, then the non-signing spouse is NOT LIABLE because you can't hold somebody liable for a contract if they didn't sign it.

So when you say "both spouses should be liable for claims against it" -- they aren't, in reality, because one spouse can't bind the other to a contract without their knowledge -- and the CARD Act tries to address that issue, by saying that if one spouse uses joint income to try to open a credit line, they have to get the signature of the other spouse: Why? So -- just as you said - both spouses would be liable for claims on the card.

This is the legal aspect of a situation we've been talking about as being primarily between spouses-- why should the other spouse have to sign?

After all, if the other spouse wanted to open a line of credit, the non-wage-earning spouse wouldn't have to sign. But it's both their money, right?

[Coito ergo sum]

Why should the other spouse have to sign? I will summarize, as i have addressed that before:

Because even though the assets of the marriage can legally be spent by either spouse, the credit card company can only reach the income of the spouse that signs the application. It couldn't, for example, get a judgment against the stay at home spouse, and garnish the wages of the wage earner spouse (unless the wage earner spouse signed the contract).

If the other spouse wanted to open a line of credit, the other non-wage earning spouse wouldn't have to sign, because the credit card company has enough income to back up the credit decision from the person who does sign. So, from the credit card company's perspective they have recourse. You see - the law was about protecting the credit card company, as I've said.

It's both their money, right? Yes. Yes. It is. But, let me stress this: the fact that it is both of the spouses money does not give the credit card company recourse against a non-signing spouse.

[hadespussercats]

Why should the other spouse have to sign? I will summarize, as i have addressed that before:

Because even though the assets of the marriage can legally be spent by either spouse, the credit card company can only reach the income of the spouse that signs the application. It couldn't, for example, get a judgment against the stay at home spouse, and garnish the wages of the wage earner spouse (unless the wage earner spouse signed the contract).

If the other spouse wanted to open a line of credit, the other non-wage earning spouse wouldn't have to sign, because the credit card company has enough income to back up the credit decision from the person who does sign. So, from the credit card company's perspective they have recourse. You see - the law was about protecting the credit card company, as I've said.

It's both their money, right? Yes. Yes. It is. But, let me stress this: the fact that it is both of the spouses money does not give the credit card company recourse against a non-signing spouse.

Maybe it should.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why should the other spouse have to sign? I will summarize, as i have addressed that before:

Because even though the assets of the marriage can legally be spent by either spouse, the credit card company can only reach the income of the spouse that signs the application. It couldn't, for example, get a judgment against the stay at home spouse, and garnish the wages of the wage earner spouse (unless the wage earner spouse signed the contract).

If the other spouse wanted to open a line of credit, the other non-wage earning spouse wouldn't have to sign, because the credit card company has enough income to back up the credit decision from the person who does sign. So, from the credit card company's perspective they have recourse. You see - the law was about protecting the credit card company, as I've said.

It's both their money, right? Yes. Yes. It is. But, let me stress this: the fact that it is both of the spouses money does not give the credit card company recourse against a non-signing spouse.

Maybe it should.

Maybe, but it does not presently.

What would be the consequences of the law making a wife bound by a husband's decision to, unbeknownst to her, get credit cards for which the wife is legally obligated to pay without the wife's knowledge or consent? Can you think of any likely consequences? I can right away -- when there is a falling out in the marriage for some reason the husband may apply for a lot of credit, run up the bill, and then not pay, and leave the wife holding the bag, ruining her credit, exposing her to lawsuits, etc. If he's a non-wage earner, then he can run up the credit cards, bail out the marriage, file bankruptcy, and he's scot-free, possibly with loads of cash withdrawals from the credit card which he stuck in a shoe box. The wife wage earner may have no way to file chapter 7 due to having too much income, and might get stuck paying for it.

Somehow, if the law changes in that regard, I would think that protections for abuses would have to be built in.

I think it would be unworkable, ultimately, to change the law to let one spouse bind the other spouse to credit contracts. I mean, think of other types of contracts -- do most spouses want their other spouse to be able to go to a dealership and buy a car on an installment loan and bind both spouses, even though only one signed? Credit cards can often have credit limits far higher than the price of a car, easily. I think that the opportunities for abuse and inequity are too much. People ought to know in advance if they are going to be bound by long-term contracts. I think it is one thing to have a spouse have the right to spend actual cash the family has, and quite another to go out and run up someone's credit and bind them to contracts without their knowledge, much less consent.

[hadespussercats]

I think most financial contracts do in fact bind both spouses.

Still, what I'm disappointed about in this thread (the reason I was backing out before) is that I asked you a pretty darn specific hypothetical about you, because I wanted to know your personal thoughts about this stuff. It wasn't a rhetorical trick. I wasn't trying to trap you into making some general comment about policy.

But your responses were pretty much across the board generic. You kept complaining about how certain scenarios are always framed with the woman as the one in charge of childcare, etc., and how much that pissed you off. And you complained about the issue of choosing to have kids in the first place, and who should be responsible, and who should be paying, and none of that really has anything to do with what I asked you about.

I want to know how you would work that situation out with your partner, what your concerns would be, and what you'd do to address them-- from how it'd feel to not be earning money yourself, to how you two would manage your time, to whether you'd ever feel entitiled to "time off" or if you sould even think of it like that.... and so forth and so on.

I don't want to know about "a spouse." I want to hear about the real you, in this made-up situation.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think most financial contracts do in fact bind both spouses.

You think wrongly. They do not.

Still, what I'm disappointed about in this thread (the reason I was backing out before) is that I asked you a pretty darn specific hypothetical about you, because I wanted to know your personal thoughts about this stuff. It wasn't a rhetorical trick. I wasn't trying to trap you into making some general comment about policy.

I thought I answered it. No, I don't think I should, under the scenario you presented, be paid a salary by my wage earning spouse. I've said that before, and I explained why. Some of my questions and follow up was to (a) amplify why I thought that way, and (b) to clarify things about the questions that were unclear to me, and to get further facts about the hypothetical (e.g. my question about what my wife would be able to do in your hypothetical if it turns out she was unhappy with my job performance).

But your responses were pretty much across the board generic.

That's weird. My responses answered your question, specifically, and explained the reasons why. What question didn't I answer?

You kept complaining about how certain scenarios are always framed with the woman as the one in charge of childcare, etc.,

I did not. I think I mentioned that once. I did complain about the CARD Act links that you provided referring to "stay at home moms." I do think that it is interesting that the concern is for "moms" and not "stay at home parents."

and how much that pissed you off.

I never said it pissed me off, and never was pissed off. It is more of a pet peeve. I don't see why it's about "moms" as opposed to "parents."

And you complained about the issue of choosing to have kids in the first place, and who should be responsible, and who should be paying, and none of that really has anything to do with what I asked you about.

Let me explain why it does, in fact, have everything to do with what you asked about. You're asking about whether a person should be paid for housework and child care for their own kids. Initially, you phrased the question in the passive voice, not specifying who would be the payor. I answered the question in two ways -- I explained that if it was going to be the government making the payments, then I was totally against that because I don't think you should have to pay me because I decide to stay home and take care of the kids. See how that DOES have everything to do with what you asked, if the payor was to be the government.

I also answered your question in the manner I believe you thereafter clarified -- that the wage earner spouse's pay from the day job would be used to pay the stay at home spouse's hourly wage. I explained in great detail why I opposed that too, and I won't reiterate those reasons. I find the idea to be ludicrous. If someone else wants to set up that arrangement, where the wage earning spouse writes a check to the stay at home spouse, and that's all he or she gets, then fine. It's not for me. With me and SWMBO'd, the way we do it now with both of us working is that she and I have carte blanche to do whatever we want with the money, but we respect each other enough to discuss almost everything except minor day to day stuff and necessaries. If I stayed home and SWMBO'd worked for pay outside the home, then the situation would be the same. For me to be relegated to employee status, and given what amounts to an "allowance" would place me in a subservient position, impliedly subject to her "counseling" me for poor performance, getting pissed off if stuff she thinks should be done during the day is not done, and all those sorts of things.

I want to know how you would work that situation out with your partner, what your concerns would be, and what you'd do to address them-- from how it'd feel to not be earning money yourself, to how you two would manage your time, to whether you'd ever feel entitiled to "time off" or if you sould even think of it like that.... and so forth and so on.

I don't want to know about "a spouse." I want to hear about the real you, in this made-up situation.

I addressed both. I'm positive I did, but by all means I am willing to clarify, as I think I already partially did here.

How would I work the situation out with my partner: With my wife, everything that is mine is hers. If she works outside the home and I stay home, I am not her employee. I am a partner. Partners don't pay salaries to other partners. Partners pay salaries to employees and servants. If the reverse were true, that would be the same -- she is not my employee. While we are married, our combined income is ours together - in my opinion - and it is up to us to trust each other and deal with each other. In our scenario, I have no concerns, because (1) I have absolute trust in her, and she would never do anything irresponsibly or deceitfully. It is not in her nature; (2) if for some reason she did do something untoward, say, run off with all of our money and leave me in the lurch, then I would be devastated, but I would bear her no ill will and I would wish her the best in life, and I would pick myself, dust myself off and proceed on in life, probably on my own for my remaining years.

What would be my concerns? Well, with my current scenario I have no concerns, because I have never been more sure about anything.

With the scenario you proposed, if it was with my current spouse, I would not ask for any "hourly wage", as I noted above, nor would expect to get one, nor would I think it would be a good idea, nor would I have any concerns about not getting "paid" for taking care of our own home and family.

With the scenario you proposed, if we assumed I was, in fact, receiving an hourly wage, I think it would concern me a lot because of the damage such a relationship could do to our marriage. I am not her employee - I'm her husband. Such a dynamic is a master-servant, superior-subordinate relationship, and that is not the relationship I want with my spouse, whether I'm the breadwinner or whether she is the breadwinner. I would be concerned that normal marital interaction could be colored by the "I pay your salary" dynamic, and "you're supposed to do X, Y and Z - that's what I'm paying you for" dynamic. I don't want that, and setting up the situation you propose encourages that, and is a recipe for disaster in that respect.

Time off? Sure, we can go on vacations together. I don't know what you mean by whether I would be entitled to time off. The way I see it, I'm entitled, legally, to whatever time off I want to take and feel I can manage. It's up to me and my wife in your scenario to arrange time off. We'd go on vacation and do stuff, like we do now, and that would be our time off. If what you mean is a "vacation from home" where for some reason I, as stay at home dad, just go off on a trip by myself - then no - I personally would never do that, as I have no desire to be away from SWMBO'd. I would have no need for any set "time-off" from SWMBO'd and the family because when she came home from work, in your scenario, we would arrange things such that any sort of down time or time alone to relax that I needed I would have, within the realm of reason, of course. Your scenario of employer-employee would harm that, actually, because people who work for hourly wages get set break times and lunch times, a schedule they have to adhere to. I'm not a day care provider or an hourly worker. I'm a parent. I make the decisions.

How would it feel to not be earning money myself? Well, for me personally, that is not an option because if anyone was going to stay home, SWMBO'd would stay home. She would not have it that I stay home - it's just not something she would agree to. However, if as in your scenario, she did agree to it, and I did stay home, I would likely be earning money myself in a work-from-home scenario, as I do not feel that I would have time to do both. I would also have evenings, and I could never see myself exclusively being a homemaker, even if I was at home. I believe there is a lot of down time in being exclusively a homemaker - my opinion - although that would probably set some people off. HOwever, if indeed I was not earning any money myself, then I can tell you I would deal with it and any misgivings I had about it would not be salved by having my wife cut me a check for an hourly wage. That would be patronizing more than anything else, and would denigrate what I am doing at home. My spouse paying me an hourly wage? No thanks. What else? She's doing payroll and deducting taxes, FICA, Social Security, and paying workers comp and unemployment insurance? And, if she isn't, then isn't it really just her giving me an allowance, rather than a wage? I think it's a silly, ridiculous idea.

As a corollary to that, I mean, my wife paying me some hourly wage for housework is not going to make me "Feel" as if I'm now earning money myself. At best it will make me "feel" like I'm now an employee, not a parent, and that I'm subject to periodic reviews of my performance, raises, salary reductions, layoff, and that sort of thing. I don't want to feel like that vis-a-vis my spouse.

How would the two of us manage our time? By interacting as husband and wife. She'd be at work, and if she has to work late, then she works late. If I was a stay at home dad, my time would be something like this: Wake up at around 6am and make coffee and breakfast for both of us, pack up her lunch if I didn't do it the night before (she likes to bring lunch from home), Kiss her goodbye and tell her I love her, clean up the kitchen, handle any issues with the kids, and give the house a good once over first thing in the morning (every morning), if we have a child at home and not in school, I would take care of the child, change diapers when needed, feed, and do all that sort of thing throughout the day, and intersperse other tasks, I would prepare dinner to be ready when my wife came home, I'd make sure the house is neat and orderly, and I would try to greet her with a smile. On days where shopping is necessary, I'd go shopping. On breaks I would try to work on things that would earn money. When she got home, there wouldn't be any laundry for her to do, or cleaning. She'd likely want to spend time with our child, and all that. But, if I'm doing my job as a homemaker then she ought not have to share in the day-to-day tasks of cleaning and cooking.

I hope that clarifies things. Have I missed anything?

[hadespussercats]

Do you guys have a joint account, or do you keep your finances separate?

[hadespussercats]

Also, re- commitments for marrieds finances--
I'm responsible for my husband's school loans, which he took out while we were married, even though I didn't sign on to any of them. Even if we get divorced, this will be the case.

If you take out a mortgage on a house while you're married, and you and your wife separate, and you move out and stop paying the mortgage, she's responsible for those payments, even if she didn't sign on.

If my husband were to buy a new car on credit from the dealer, without asking me, and then didn't make any payments on it, my credit would be trashed, too.

I don't understand how you can say these financial commitments don't affect both spouses.

[mistermack]

Also, re- commitments for marrieds finances--
I'm responsible for my husband's school loans, which he took out while we were married, even though I didn't sign on to any of them. Even if we get divorced, this will be the case.

If you take out a mortgage on a house while you're married, and you and your wife separate, and you move out and stop paying the mortgage, she's responsible for those payments, even if she didn't sign on.

If my husband were to buy a new car on credit from the dealer, without asking me, and then didn't make any payments on it, my credit would be trashed, too.

I don't understand how you can say these financial commitments don't affect both spouses.

Gay marriage might be a bit of a poison chalice then?

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you guys have a joint account, or do you keep your finances separate?

We have a joint account. Most of the money in it, I suppose, you would consider to be "mine" because I make WAY more money than her. Maybe I should put it in a separate account and pay her a piece rate for the dishes she washes, meals she cooks, an laundry she does, and I'll deduct out her half of all the bills I pay.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, re- commitments for marrieds finances--
I'm responsible for my husband's school loans, which he took out while we were married, even though I didn't sign on to any of them. Even if we get divorced, this will be the case.

If the loan was incurred prior to marriage, and was in your husband's name only. you aren't responsible for it -- UNLESS you signed something agreeing to be responsible for it.

If you take out a mortgage on a house while you're married, and you and your wife separate, and you move out and stop paying the mortgage, she's responsible for those payments, even if she didn't sign on.

Wrong. Absolutely. Positively. Not true. If you take out a mortgage while your married and only you sign the note, then only you are liable on the note. Period. If you fail to pay the note, they can foreclose, of course, and anyone living there, even someone who isn't on the note, can be forced to leave. But, if one spouse signs a promissory note secured by a mortgage and the other spouse doesn't sign it -- the non-signing spouse is not liable. In most cases, a bank won't extend a loan to buy a house to just one spouse. They'll require two signatures.

If my husband were to buy a new car on credit from the dealer, without asking me, and then didn't make any payments on it, my credit would be trashed, too.

Your credit report and liability on the loan are two different things. If your husband signs a retail installment contract for a car, and you don't sign it or cosign it, then you are not liable on the payments.

I don't understand how you can say these financial commitments don't affect both spouses.

Because they don't. Well, "affect" is a different word than "liable to pay." For sure you aren't liable to pay in any of the instances you listed, unless at some point you agreed to pay - by signing a document saying that you agree to pay.

[Coito ergo sum]

I will add a caveat here, that if you have a bank account in both of your names, it can usually be garnished by a judgment creditor who has judgment even only against one. That's because, of course, that asset is in both your names. Most states allow the account holders to try to prove that the money is actually owned by the non-debtor spouse, or at least some of it is, so that the judgment creditor can't take it all.

[mistermack]

Ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. silly Americans !

You Americans are going to have a first lady who has never done a stroke of work, ever.

Here in England, we have a head of state called the Queen, and she.. .. .. .

Oh bollocks !!

[laklak]

Also, re- commitments for marrieds finances--
I'm responsible for my husband's school loans, which he took out while we were married, even though I didn't sign on to any of them. Even if we get divorced, this will be the case.

If you take out a mortgage on a house while you're married, and you and your wife separate, and you move out and stop paying the mortgage, she's responsible for those payments, even if she didn't sign on.

Doesn't sound right to me, though student loans might be different. In any other contractual arrangement (which is what a loan is), only the signing person can be held responsible. In terms of a mortgage you absolutely would NOT be liable if you were not on the note, unless (big unless) the judge ordered it as part of "equitable distribution" in a divorce. In your example the wife would not be legally responsible for the mortgage payments, however, if she didn't pay them the bank could foreclose. It's a bit of a moot point, because no bank will allow a mortgage against a property unless all the owners on the deed sign the mortgage, so the only way your example could happen is if the wife was not on the deed in the first place.

If my husband were to buy a new car on credit from the dealer, without asking me, and then didn't make any payments on it, my credit would be trashed, too.

I don't understand how you can say these financial commitments don't affect both spouses.

No, your credit would be unaffected. If the finance company reported YOU to the the credit agencies you could force them to remove the report, because you never legally owed them any money. Whether married or not you cannot be held to a contract you do not sign, that's a basic precept of contract law. Mind you, I'm talking from a Florida perspective, I don't know how New York law reads. I do know their divorce laws are positively draconian compared to Florida, I talked the ex into moving here from Syracuse for the express purpose of divorcing her in a friendlier legal climate.

[hadespussercats]

Coito-- the loan was after we got married.

Still, Coito and LakLak, it's good to know all this-- I've heard a lot of varying reports, but I've been under the impression that being an economic unit meant, well, being an economic unit, for the most part.

Are you both from Florida?

J and I still have separate accounts, which is probably silly, but we both feel like we'd have an easier time keeping track of ins and outs if we each kept our own pile. Plus, I think we both like having a chunk that's ours to allocate-- even though we still make most decisions together, divvy up bills (and yes, Coito, give each other money as needed.)

Coito, I should clarify that I'm not necessarily a fan of one partner paying another to care for the kids. It's a problem that I was looking to think through-- the fact that a stay-at-home parent does forego all sorts of important things like social security, a continuous employment history, 401K or work-related retirement/pension... And in bad marriages, the partner who makes money often can keep the SAH partner dominated, by controlling access to the couple's funds. So what would be some good ways to address that?

It was actually Suze Orman who'd mentioned somewhere that it can be a good idea for a couple to work out an agreement between them that even if they have a joint account, that each have their own account in their own name, and that the SAH parent should receive an amount from the wage-earning spouse to keep in that separate account (this isn't a legal requirement-- just a suggestion for personal use.) This arrangement would ensure that the SAH parent would be able to take care of finances with a certain level of independence-- and that separate account not only reminds them both that the SAH parent is doing valuable work for the family, but protects the SAH parent if the couple ends up headed for divorce.

J and I don't do that. But I didn't think it was a bad idea.