Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[hadespussercats]

I thought their money was their money-- that the money one spouse earns is for both of them. (This is my sense of your earlier position, which you've declared several times. This above comment of yours seems like a reversal.)

No, because whether their assets together are marital assets is not the same thing as whether a spouse can bind another spouse to liability under a contract. That's what a credit card is. So, the position of the credit card company is that they are contracting only with the person or persons who sign up for the card. If only one person signs up for a card, then that person's spouse does not become liable. That's contract law, and isn't the same thing as whether a spouse's assets are legally considered part of the "marital estate."

I didn't post that in a gender-specific way-- in my hypothetical example to you, you are the stay-at-home parent.

I didn't say you did. But, my question as to why you posted it is merely to express my lack of understanding of the point you're making by posting it.

Seems like you think the stay at home parent doesn't just have money for being married to the wage-earner. So. Is a stay-at home parent a slave?

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

Or should he be paid for his time?

Paid by whom? You keep phrasing this in the passive voice.

What if I'm a "stay at home single man" and I choose to be a homemaker and take care of myself and my home. Should I get paid for my time?

What if I'm a stay at home single parent? Should single moms and dads be "paid for their time" at home if they "choose" to be homemakers?

I'm asking questions about your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be inferring my opinion from those questions, and from links I post.

Re the bolded bit-- the issue in the link I posted is that the stay-at-home parent seeking a credit card is not allowed in this case to list household income as his or her own. In other words, that money is not his or hers to claim as income.

Whose money is it, then?

I thought you said that spouses' money is shared. Clearly not, in this case.

[hadespussercats]

Regarding this:

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

In the hypothetical example I posited, you and your wife decide between you that you should stay home and care for your high-needs twins until they're in school.

No one forced you to have twins, that's beside the point, and for the purposes of this discussion, Coito, I'd like you to stop bringing it up.

If you didn't have young children, you wouldn't have decided to stay home with them. So comparing this situation to you just... staying at home doesn't wash.

You're on duty. When your wife comes home, it's not like you suddenly hand over all childcare responsibilities, housecleaning responsibilities, whatever. But, you could. You could decide between you that that's when you get a break, go out for your poker game, whatever. It doesn't really matter-- you're both home. Her workday is through, and your workday of being the sole caretaker of the twins is through.

Maybe y'all cook dinner together. Wash dishes, give the kids a bath, all the stuff you might have done (or tried to get done) when you were alone with the kids during the day.

See? You both have workdays, you both have things you take care of around the house or with your family when the workday's through. The main difference is that your off-hours at home look a lot more like your working hours than your wife's do.

Shouldn't at least some of the money your wife brings home be earmarked specifically as yours? After all, you're doing a task the two of you agreed together you should do. And you're doing work you'd have to pay someone else a fair amount to do if you weren't doing it. (I'm sure every place is different, but in my neighborhood you'd be lucky to find in-home care for twins, plus some cleaning/laundry/whathaveyou, for less than $20/hour.)

And this is in part what I was getting at earlier with my questions about traditional marriage as an economic unit. Traditionally, the bread-winning spouse provides for the stay-at-home spouse (generally a woman, even today, because of breastfeeding) because the stay-at-home spouse is providing valuable work, from sex to childcare to cooking to procurement of supplies to making/mending clothing to laundry to cleaning. Ina time when women couldn't own property themselves, generally, marriage was a way of getting paid. A career. (Which is what I was referencing with my flip comment about Ann Romney getting paid-- Mormons are pretty damn traditional when it comes to marriage roles-- apart from the whole polygamy thing.)

I need to look back at an earlier comment you made about the credit card issue-- something about someone frittering away a spouse's earnings with irresponsible credit card use. I found it telling. Particularly since you've made such a point that married people share their money. Someone who has no control over money-- whether to claim it as an asset or to determine how it should be spent, is not an equal sharer in that money. At best, he or she is being treated like a child with a parent who holds the pursestrings.

Someone who owns their money can fritter it away or not, as they choose. And whether they choose so or not should be between the person and the person's spouse-- not the business issuing the credit.

[Warren Dew]

(Which is what I was referencing with my flip comment about Ann Romney getting paid-- Mormons are pretty damn traditional when it comes to marriage roles-- apart from the whole polygamy thing.)

I'd just like to note in fairness to mormons that the mormon church hasn't approved of polygamy for some generations - the situation is different today from when the trip west was so difficult that men, being less hardy, were less likely to survive.

Granted there are groups that have splintered off the church over that issue.

[hadespussercats]

(Which is what I was referencing with my flip comment about Ann Romney getting paid-- Mormons are pretty damn traditional when it comes to marriage roles-- apart from the whole polygamy thing.)

I'd just like to note in fairness to mormons that the mormon church hasn't approved of polygamy for some generations - the situation is different today from when the trip west was so difficult that men, being less hardy, were less likely to survive.

Granted there are groups that have splintered off the church over that issue.

I'm aware. Point well made, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought their money was their money-- that the money one spouse earns is for both of them. (This is my sense of your earlier position, which you've declared several times. This above comment of yours seems like a reversal.)

No, because whether their assets together are marital assets is not the same thing as whether a spouse can bind another spouse to liability under a contract. That's what a credit card is. So, the position of the credit card company is that they are contracting only with the person or persons who sign up for the card. If only one person signs up for a card, then that person's spouse does not become liable. That's contract law, and isn't the same thing as whether a spouse's assets are legally considered part of the "marital estate."

I didn't post that in a gender-specific way-- in my hypothetical example to you, you are the stay-at-home parent.

I didn't say you did. But, my question as to why you posted it is merely to express my lack of understanding of the point you're making by posting it.

Seems like you think the stay at home parent doesn't just have money for being married to the wage-earner. So. Is a stay-at home parent a slave?

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

Or should he be paid for his time?

Paid by whom? You keep phrasing this in the passive voice.

What if I'm a "stay at home single man" and I choose to be a homemaker and take care of myself and my home. Should I get paid for my time?

What if I'm a stay at home single parent? Should single moms and dads be "paid for their time" at home if they "choose" to be homemakers?

I'm asking questions about your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be inferring my opinion from those questions, and from links I post.

Re the bolded bit-- the issue in the link I posted is that the stay-at-home parent seeking a credit card is not allowed in this case to list household income as his or her own. In other words, that money is not his or hers to claim as income.

Whose money is it, then?

I thought you said that spouses' money is shared. Clearly not, in this case.

Let me start with a snarky non sequitur. The CARD Act was signed into law by B.Obama. Surely, it couldn't possibly have any negative effect on women. He'd never allow that....

But, let me try to explain this. The CARD Act isn't referring to all assets, but to "income." The reason the CARD Acts says that a SPOUSE (not just a "mom" as it invariably is couched to engender sympathy) can only list their individual INCOME in a credit card that they will be getting INDIVIDUALLY, without a cosigner. The reason is very clear: so a spouse can INDIVIDUALLY get a card based on JOINT income. See what I mean? The bank is entitled, if it is granting credit based on JOINT income to have JOINT liability on the card. Otherwise, a nonworking husband can surreptitiously obtain a credit card by listing his working wife's income, run the bill up, and not pay it, and the bank has no legal recourse against the money-earning spouse.

So, yes, in this case, the law is addressing an problem in the law. But, nothing the CARD Act says changes the fact that the money is their money together. If the working spouse divorces the nonworking spouse, then all the income earned during the marriage is split equally in community property states and "equitably" in equitable distribution states. While the two are married, they can spend the marital assets any way they see fit -- if the nonworking spouse takes $50,000 and spends it on a car without permission of the working spouse, oh well. That's 'tween them. That, of course, doesn't mean that a bank, who holds an account that is in only one of the spouses name isn't bound by that contract. Hopefully you can see those distinctions.

Another issue that may illustrate what I'm trying to say -- marital debts -- let's say the non-working spouse in a divorce had run up a large credit card debt of $10,000unbeknownst to the working spouse on a credit card that the non-working spouse had acquired on his own and without the working spouse's knowledge or cosignature. They get divorced, and in the settlement, the working spouse is ordered by the divorce court, as part of the overall equitable distribution of debts and assets, to pay the $10,000. That decision doesn't bind the credit card company, and the credit card company must still look to the cardholder for payment if the working spouse fails to pay. See?

[Tyrannical]

It sounds like the Card Act removes a marriage penalty, as it allows married people the same right to singular financial responsibility that cohabiting couples have.

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding this:

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

In the hypothetical example I posited, you and your wife decide between you that you should stay home and care for your high-needs twins until they're in school.

No one forced you to have twins, that's beside the point, and for the purposes of this discussion, Coito, I'd like you to stop bringing it up.

I've also asked you to tell me what happens if the spouse who is being paid for their time is a slacker, or performs deficiently on the job. Also, are you saying that she pays me, or that the government pays me? Please clarify explicitly.

Who chooses to have children is very much relevant to the discussion though. I do not concede that it is "beside the point." It's like someone saying that they bought a big house, so now they need help paying the property taxes and mowing the lawn. You bought a big house? Enjoy it, but you have to deal with it. Same with children and a home-life. If you're asking the taxpayer to fund someone cleaning up their house, then we all ought to get a stipend, not just "stay at home parents." And, if it's only child care that you're talking about paying people for their time, then it's like the house -- you're the one who bought it/conceived it -- it's your job to pay for it.

If you didn't have young children, you wouldn't have decided to stay home with them. So comparing this situation to you just... staying at home doesn't wash.

It does wash, because the same could be said for folks that keep pumping out kids -- maybe we have 5 kids. So, now it's not my responsibility?

You're on duty.

I need a definition here. There is no such thing as "on duty" and "off duty" when people are parents. You're always on duty, even when at work, the way I see it. When a call comes to work that the kid is sick at school or day care, you're on call.

So, explain what you mean by on duty -- when do I go on duty, and what are my general duties? Who is doing the duties when I'm off duty?

When your wife comes home, it's not like you suddenly hand over all childcare responsibilities, housecleaning responsibilities, whatever.

Are you saying this as a general proposition? I know people who come home from work and literally ARE handed the child over and told that it's their turn. This is an issue between parents. So, you'll have to clarify if you're saying that for the purposes of the hypothetical, this is what my wife and I agreed, or if it's something you are saying is generally applicable.

But, you could. You could decide between you that that's when you get a break, go out for your poker game, whatever. It doesn't really matter-- you're both home. Her workday is through, and your workday of being the sole caretaker of the twins is through.

Maybe y'all cook dinner together. Wash dishes, give the kids a bath, all the stuff you might have done (or tried to get done) when you were alone with the kids during the day.

See? You both have workdays, you both have things you take care of around the house or with your family when the workday's through. The main difference is that your off-hours at home look a lot more like your working hours than your wife's do.

That is only if the non-working-house home tasks are split evenly, which is only one way to do it. If you're saying that we've chosen to do it that way for the purposes of the hypothetical, fine, but it is assuming quite a lot, like how demanding my wife's at work career is -- perhaps she comes home drained and stressed out and busts her ovaries at work all day to bring home a good living, and that level of stress and work far exceeds my home routine with the twins. So, there are plenty of factors that could enter into it.

But, I'll assume we've agreed that her work day and my stay at home day are about equal. So, she comes home and we both do stuff around the house after work. Good. So, what does that mean to you? That she should pay me a wage? Why? I don't pay her for her work. She gets a salary from her employer, not me.

Shouldn't at least some of the money your wife brings home be earmarked specifically as yours?

Nope. Because the money my wife brings home is not "earmarked specifically as HERS" either. 100% of it is ours, not just some of it earmarked. Two people are free to do what they please, though, and if they choose to have separate funds, then fine. Might make sense where you want spending money and to make it easier to spend money without having to disclose every little thing to each other, you each have some money in separate checking accounts for day to day stuff. Sounds reasonable. But, that's different that creating a wage to the stay at home spouse for "his time."

After all, you're doing a task the two of you agreed together you should do. And you're doing work you'd have to pay someone else a fair amount to do if you weren't doing it. (I'm sure every place is different, but in my neighborhood you'd be lucky to find in-home care for twins, plus some cleaning/laundry/whathaveyou, for less than $20/hour.)

So? Again, why should MY WIFE pay me for that? if WE are hiring someone to that then WE would be paying that someone. It wouldn't be just my wife hiring that person. And, likewise, if she has to pay me for my job, then why wouldn't I have to pay her for hers? I don't help her with her tasks at the office, so, for there to be a requirement some of the wages for her day job be shared with me for my day job, well, now she's not getting a full wage for her job, is she? Shouldn't I then kick in to my wife's wages, thereby making it a wash?

And this is in part what I was getting at earlier with my questions about traditional marriage as an economic unit. Traditionally, the bread-winning spouse provides for the stay-at-home spouse (generally a woman, even today, because of breastfeeding) because the stay-at-home spouse is providing valuable work, from sex to childcare to cooking to procurement of supplies to making/mending clothing to laundry to cleaning. Ina time when women couldn't own property themselves, generally, marriage was a way of getting paid. A career. (Which is what I was referencing with my flip comment about Ann Romney getting paid-- Mormons are pretty damn traditional when it comes to marriage roles-- apart from the whole polygamy thing.)

The issues were different when married women were disabled from entering into their own contracts and owning any property. But, even then, there was no wage paid. Theoretically, the money was "theirs" but in reality it was all his, and the woman too was pretty much his. So, the whole situation was messed up from our modern perspective. Today, however, the concept is two people voluntarily joined and both are of equal dignity. All the assets of the marriage are both of theirs, not just one. Neither is the employee of the other.

That's another factor you haven't addressed that I've brought up. My wage-paying wife comes home and she's not happy with my job performance. What is her recourse? Dock my wages? Reduction in pay? Maybe a good daycare person can't be found for under $20 an hour, but maybe I'm a sloth and a layabout.

I need to look back at an earlier comment you made about the credit card issue-- something about someone frittering away a spouse's earnings with irresponsible credit card use. I found it telling.

You'll have to link to it, because I think you're not accurately recounting what I wrote.

Particularly since you've made such a point that married people share their money.

I made no such point. There is a distinction between the marital assets being legally the assets of both of the spouses and the actual power dynamic that happens from one marriage to another. They may or may not "share" with each other. One spouse may be meek and let the other one handle all the money, and they may open accounts only in one name, who knows?

Someone who has no control over money-- whether to claim it as an asset or to determine how it should be spent, is not an equal sharer in that money. At best, he or she is being treated like a child with a parent who holds the pursestrings.

Both spouses have the same legal right to claim marital assets as their assets, and determine how money should be spent. The CARD Act dealt with income only - and one spouse who doesn't have a job can't get a card ONLY IN HIS NAME based on the representation that the other spouse makes a ton of money, UNLESS THE OTHER SPOUSE ALSO SIGNS TO BE LIABLE. See? It's a way to guard against a spouse getting a line of credit without the credit card company being able to pursue the income on which the credit line was based.

What your "employee" concept creates is a situation of "master-servant" where the wage earning spouse is the master, and the stay at home spouse is the servant. That is far worse than the idea that they both are legally entitled to dispose of marital assets. Plus, your idea has more problems with it than that. How about child support? So, the working spouse pays all the bills? Or, now that the working spouse is paying the stay at home spouse a salary, does the stay at home spouse now have to kick in 50-50 for the bills? Or, will the salary my wife has to pay me reduced to take that into account? And, since my wife pays me a salary, does that mean that whatever she doesn't pay me is now hers, and hers alone? I no longer have the rights of a spouse?

Someone who owns their money can fritter it away or not, as they choose. And whether they choose so or not should be between the person and the person's spouse-- not the business issuing the credit.

And, that is the way it is. But, you seem to be missing the part that the credit card company would be issuing a credit card solely in the name of one spouse, without recourse to the other spouse. So, what the law does is say that if you are going to represent "joint" income to the credit card company, then you have to sign onto the card jointly, so that both are liable.

[Coito ergo sum]

It sounds like the Card Act removes a marriage penalty, as it allows married people the same right to singular financial responsibility that cohabiting couples have.

They already had that. It always was the case that if one spouse got a credit card solely in their own name, that the other spouse would not be liable for that debt. Caution: private debt, that is -- IRS stuff is different. And, of course, if one spouse has a debt, most joint assets can be reached by that individual debt -- but, a creditor cannot garnish wages of the wage earning spouse for a judgment on a debt involving a card held solely in the other non-working spouse's name).

What this part of the CARD Act did was protect credit card companies from being forced under credit laws to issue a card to one spouse singly, such that a default could and often did ensue without them being able to chase the individual whose income was used to base the granting of credit in the first place.

[hadespussercats]

I thought their money was their money-- that the money one spouse earns is for both of them. (This is my sense of your earlier position, which you've declared several times. This above comment of yours seems like a reversal.)

No, because whether their assets together are marital assets is not the same thing as whether a spouse can bind another spouse to liability under a contract. That's what a credit card is. So, the position of the credit card company is that they are contracting only with the person or persons who sign up for the card. If only one person signs up for a card, then that person's spouse does not become liable. That's contract law, and isn't the same thing as whether a spouse's assets are legally considered part of the "marital estate."

I didn't post that in a gender-specific way-- in my hypothetical example to you, you are the stay-at-home parent.

I didn't say you did. But, my question as to why you posted it is merely to express my lack of understanding of the point you're making by posting it.

Seems like you think the stay at home parent doesn't just have money for being married to the wage-earner. So. Is a stay-at home parent a slave?

No, a stay at home parent is not a slave, because the stay at home parent doesn't have to do anything they don't want to do. They also are not required to have children in the first place, or get married. If they are married, it is certainly LAWFUL to have one working spouse pay the other spouse $10 an hour (or whatever) for vacuuming, going to the grocery store, cleaning the bathrooms and kitchen, and taking care of a child (if any), but should it be legally required that a stay at home spouse be paid for "their time?" Of course not.

If a stay at home dad gets "paid for his time" cleaning up and wiping asses, then the "working mom" who comes home and puts in 4 hours in the evening of the same home-tasks ought to be paid for hers, too, yes?

Or should he be paid for his time?

Paid by whom? You keep phrasing this in the passive voice.

What if I'm a "stay at home single man" and I choose to be a homemaker and take care of myself and my home. Should I get paid for my time?

What if I'm a stay at home single parent? Should single moms and dads be "paid for their time" at home if they "choose" to be homemakers?

I'm asking questions about your thoughts on the matter. You seem to be inferring my opinion from those questions, and from links I post.

Re the bolded bit-- the issue in the link I posted is that the stay-at-home parent seeking a credit card is not allowed in this case to list household income as his or her own. In other words, that money is not his or hers to claim as income.

Whose money is it, then?

I thought you said that spouses' money is shared. Clearly not, in this case.

Let me start with a snarky non sequitur. The CARD Act was signed into law by B.Obama. Surely, it couldn't possibly have any negative effect on women. He'd never allow that....

But, let me try to explain this. The CARD Act isn't referring to all assets, but to "income." The reason the CARD Acts says that a SPOUSE (not just a "mom" as it invariably is couched to engender sympathy) can only list their individual INCOME in a credit card that they will be getting INDIVIDUALLY, without a cosigner. The reason is very clear: so a spouse can INDIVIDUALLY get a card based on JOINT income. See what I mean? The bank is entitled, if it is granting credit based on JOINT income to have JOINT liability on the card. Otherwise, a nonworking husband can surreptitiously obtain a credit card by listing his working wife's income, run the bill up, and not pay it, and the bank has no legal recourse against the money-earning spouse.

So, yes, in this case, the law is addressing an problem in the law. But, nothing the CARD Act says changes the fact that the money is their money together. If the working spouse divorces the nonworking spouse, then all the income earned during the marriage is split equally in community property states and "equitably" in equitable distribution states. While the two are married, they can spend the marital assets any way they see fit -- if the nonworking spouse takes $50,000 and spends it on a car without permission of the working spouse, oh well. That's 'tween them. That, of course, doesn't mean that a bank, who holds an account that is in only one of the spouses name isn't bound by that contract. Hopefully you can see those distinctions.

Another issue that may illustrate what I'm trying to say -- marital debts -- let's say the non-working spouse in a divorce had run up a large credit card debt of $10,000unbeknownst to the working spouse on a credit card that the non-working spouse had acquired on his own and without the working spouse's knowledge or cosignature. They get divorced, and in the settlement, the working spouse is ordered by the divorce court, as part of the overall equitable distribution of debts and assets, to pay the $10,000. That decision doesn't bind the credit card company, and the credit card company must still look to the cardholder for payment if the working spouse fails to pay. See?

I've understood the points you're making here from the start. Still, they only serve to emphasize my point-- that the "working" spouse, as you put it (also telling), controls the couple's money. I.e.-- the money belongs to that spouse, not to the two equally. Otherwise, I don't see why iy would be an issue if the supposed "non-working" spouse spent the money, or ran up debts (essentially the same thing) that the other spouse is responsible for.

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

I typically have used the term "wage earning" spouse, and if my sporadic usage of the word "working" spouse is so "telling" to you that you need to say something about it, then at least be consistent and announce that it is also "telling" to you about Hillary Rosen, the woman who used that word in reference to Ann Romney. I note you never were disturbed enough about it to consider it "Telling" of anything until I used the word.

Also, I'm the one adopting the position here that the money earned by the respective spouses are equally the property of both, and that both may spend it freely and both have the same authority over it, which is true. So, please don't keep telling me that my position is that the one who brings home the paycheck "controls the money."

With regarding to this assertion: "Otherwise, I don't see why iy would be an issue if the supposed "non-working" spouse spent the money, or ran up debts (essentially the same thing) that the other spouse is responsible for." Let me try to explain this again -- the non-WAGE EARNING spouse certainly can run up debts and spend the money all he or she wants. The CARD Act merely says that the credit card company doesn't have to extend a line of credit to one spouse alone if it will be unable to reach the income on which the extension of credit is based. Surely you see that? I mean -- it's not a law governing the rights to assets of the marriage as between the spouses. It is a law that protects credit card companies from getting screwed because they have to issue a credit card to me, who has no income IN MY NAME THAT THEY CAN REACH, based on my spouse's income WHICH THEY CAN'T REACH. I mean - that's common sense. The alternative is to change the rule and make it that if one's spouse opens up a credit card based on the total spouses' joint income that both spouses are liable for the debts even if only one spouse signs on the contract.

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.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, after this post I don't think I'm going to pursue our discussion any further.

As for the sentiment of yours you asked me to link to (one spouse irresponsibly handling, spending, or otherwise committing the money earned by the other spouse) well, you discuss it rather lavishly in every post in which you've referenced the CARD act.

On one hand, you discuss a couple's joint assets as though that were a given-- shared resources between a couple. Then, within the same post, you discuss one spouse spending another spouse's money, as though that weren't inherently a contradiction with the first sentiment. I don't care if you're talking about private financial dealings or taxes-- does that money belong to them both, or not?

I think it's interesting that you take a hypothetical example of one spouse (you) staying home to care for young children and immediately extend from that to the image of a "slacker" "layabout." I guess there's a reason you're not a stay-at-home dad.

As for a spouse being unhappy with your performance in this scenario, well--
if you're doing a terrible job raising your children, yeah, I think your wife would be smart to call a halt to the proceedings-- whether by demanding you return to work and you both get professional daycare, or by divorcing you. You always bring up this scenario with incredulity, but it's not incredible, and there are ways of handling it.

Incidentally, when I've brought up the concept of your spouse paying you for your time in this scenario, you've scoffed and said it didn't seem right for the wife to pay you, because that would make her your employer, and would mean she "calls the shots." And yet, you have no problem, in that same scenario, with your wife being able to call the shots as to whether you have any spending money at all, or whether you can open a credit line at Target to buy diapers with.

But if you paid for professional daycare, you would certainly have the right to demand that the daycare providers are accredited by the state, that they meet legal codes of care, that they are attentive and keep your child safe and fed (within a previously agreed-upon arrangement of provided snacks or food from home or whatever.)

BUT-- beyond that, you do not call the shots at that daycare. If you don't like the activities, the schedule, the language(s), the other kids, whatever-- you pull your kids and find another daycare. And you certainly don't get to tell the daycare teacher that she can't buy a new coat, or an Xbox, or whatever she wants with the money she earned doing that work.

I hope you can draw the appropriate parallels.

[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.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, after this post I don't think I'm going to pursue our discussion any further.

As for the sentiment of yours you asked me to link to (one spouse irresponsibly handling, spending, or otherwise committing the money earned by the other spouse) well, you discuss it rather lavishly in every post in which you've referenced the CARD act.

On one hand, you discuss a couple's joint assets as though that were a given-- shared resources between a couple. Then, within the same post, you discuss one spouse spending another spouse's money, as though that weren't inherently a contradiction with the first sentiment. I don't care if you're talking about private financial dealings or taxes-- does that money belong to them both, or not?

I've never once referred to one spouse spending "another spouse's" money. I am flabbergasted that you say that. It does belong to both. But, that is not the same question as whether the the credit card company can go after both of them. Don't you see that? I mean -- the CARD Act is about credit card companies issuing credit based on joint income of two spouses but only being able to go after ONE of the two for collection. The cardholding spouse obviously could use marital assets to pay the credit card, if he or she wants, but if there is a default on the card, the credit card company won't be able to reach the income of the non-cardholder spouse because the law of contracts doesn't allow them to do it. That is what the CARD Act changes. And, it says that if the credit card company has to issue credit based on JOINT INCOME it has the right to have both signatures on the dotted line. I can't be any clearer than that.

YES the money belongs to both. But, can't you see that the money belonging to both has nothing to do with a credit card company extending credit to one person based on joint income, and only being able to chase one of them?

I think it's interesting that you take a hypothetical example of one spouse (you) staying home to care for young children and immediately extend from that to the image of a "slacker" "layabout." I guess there's a reason you're not a stay-at-home dad.

I didn't extrapolate - I asked you a question. You were asking me questions -- I have answered yours. So, I see no reason why I can't ask you questions too.

My question was what the paying spouse's recourse would be IF -- IF -- IF -- IF -- the situation were to arise that the payee spouse was not doing his job. That is part of the equation here. If one person is to be the employer of the other, by paying for "on duty" time, "by the hour," which was the situation you set up, then I think it's relevant to know the limits of those duties and the expectations, and the recourse, if there is a failure or deficient performance. I mean, I suppose you could say that there is no recourse and the the hours are the hours, regardless of what the stay-at-home spouse does, but it's your hypothetical - I'm trying to clarify through follow-up questions.

As for a spouse being unhappy with your performance in this scenario, well--
if you're doing a terrible job raising your children, yeah, I think your wife would be smart to call a halt to the proceedings-- whether by demanding you return to work and you both get professional daycare, or by divorcing you. You always bring up this scenario with incredulity, but it's not incredible, and there are ways of handling it.

O.k., that's fine. That's what I was asking. So, the recourse is: persuade me to improve, demand a return to work and hire daycare, or divorce. There is no right to reduce the wage?

Here's a followup question, too: who sets the wage? The payee? State statute? The payor?

Incidentally, when I've brought up the concept of your spouse paying you for your time in this scenario, you've scoffed and said it didn't seem right for the wife to pay you, because that would make her your employer, and would mean she "calls the shots." And yet, you have no problem, in that same scenario, with your wife being able to call the shots as to whether you have any spending money at all, or whether you can open a credit line at Target to buy diapers with.

False. I have a definite "problem" with a spouse calling the shots as to whether the other spouse has any spending money at all. I'm the one saying it's BOTH of their money, so the nonwage earning spouse can buy all the diapers she wants with the money earned by the other spouse. Where in the world do you get the idea that I am saying that the stay-at-home spouse can't do that.

And, the stay at home spouse, in my view, CAN go out and open a credit line at Target. Why not? What the CARD Act does is just say that they don't have to issue a credit line to only one spouse, if they are making the decision to extend credit on the income of both -- that's because that even thought both spouses have an absolute right to spend that money, the credit card company can ONLY GO AFTER INCOME OF THE ONE WHO SIGNS THE APPLICATION -- so, basically, it's saying that if you're going to use joint income on an application for credit, then both spouses have to sign to be liable. It's not about one spouse giving the other "permission."

I didn't "scoff" at the wage earning spouse being the employer. I pointed out that it's WORSE for the non-working spouse to be relegated to the status of employee of the one spouse, because what that does is exactly what you object to -- gives the power and the authority over the money to the wage earner, except to the extent of the cash paid over for 8 hours homemaking tasks. The rest of the money is what? The money of the wage earning spouse, right? Under the present state of affairs, all the money is both of theirs. Under your state of affairs, only a small portion of the money is paid to the non wage earning spouse.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[hadespussercats]

dup