BugsyPal

Credit Card Act of 2009 required lenders to grant credit based upon the *applicant's ability to pay" back sums borrowed. There then ensued much loud noise from stay at home wives and mothers that they were being "denied" credit simply because they lacked official income.

Prior to this change, yes, many banks/lenders did consider "household income" meaning what was a husband's was also his wife's. But the law put them up against a brick wall. In theory yes, the SAHM or W does *NOT* have income, but an interest in a joint estate (marriage) by which what's his is hers and vice versa.

Government came out with some guidance to soften the rules, but still many aren't happy.
https://finance.zacks.com/options-sp...card-9589.html

As noted above the changes included:

"A 2013 amendment to the federal regulations surrounding the Card Act expanded the definition of one’s ability to pay so that people 21 and older can include any income to which they have a “reasonable expectation of access.” This can include income from a spouse, partner or other member of your household. It can also include nonwage income such as savings, trust fund distributions, unemployment compensation and others." https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cred...g-credit-card/

See also: https://millionmilesecrets.com/guide...t-cards-again/

https://www.doctorofcredit.com/can-m...d-application/

It is important to focus on fact while the 2013 amendment allowed banks/lenders to consider other sources of income for those 21 and over, it did not mandate they accept such information and approve all applications. Lenders still )as their right) reserve such decisions based upon overall creditworthiness of those applying.

The one huge fly in all this equality ointment is granting credit to someone without any other visible means of support other than the spouse. In the event of divorce or demise person with credit card/loan can then find themselves owing sums which they have no means to repay, and or doing so taxes current new income.