Posted on 12/20/2008 11:58:19 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Just wondering, who says she doesn’t have good credit???
True. And yes we file joint. And for many years, I didn’t have any income that could be recorded.
I understand what you’re saying. However, I couldn’t open a new account or change an existing account without his signature since I didn’t have any income other than “his.
OK - living in Australia where this has been a story for a few days now, I can add some detail based on local experience.
They don’t generally check your credit when you buy a mobile phone (the term we use here - cell phone is rarely heard) in Australia. This woman was not denied a mobile phone because of bad credit - she was denied it purely and simply because she didn’t have a work phone number, and the reason she didn’t have a work phone number is because she is a stay-at-home mother. It’s nothing to do with credit.
I don’t have a work phone number as it happens - I’m a teacher and we don’t have individual phones at school. Yes, somebody can phone the school and they’d eventually make contact with me, but I’d never give the school number as a ‘work number’ in the sense the term is used here, because that’s not how things work here. Most factory workers don’t have a ‘work number’, nor do most nurses, taxi drivers, police officers, large numbers of defence force personnel. It’s actually caused quite a few people problems here - this assumption by service providers that no ‘work number’ where they can easily contact you means they won’t sell to you.
As for being a stay-at-home mother - Australia’s welfare system includes payments for having children that most families receive (there are exceptions for the very wealthy) and in most cases, those payments are made to the mother. And to boost our economy, parents who receive these payments have just been given an extra $1000 per child lump sum before Christmas.
Being a stay-at-home mother doesn’t even mean having no income here.
Maybe her credit was shot.
You know, If they supplied the phone, they would be able to contact you.
Two complicated.
We bought a previous car in my name with my wife as co-signer because--- well, that's the way it was always done.
It didn't take much thought to see the value of her having the primary role because it accrues many benefits, among which is avoidance of the problems in this article.
The last auto purchase was in her name with me as the co-signer. Didn't change a thing, other than now she doesn't have to rely on me to establish her bona fides and avoid BS.
Some people want to change the world to suit their view of it; others accept the way the world is and lead more stress-free lives.
From what I read in the article, and there wasn’t much information, it seems as if they denied her a cell phone with a plan. Most of the time, in my experience, that requires an application/contract. If she doesn’t have an income/job, her husband, assuming he has a job/income, would have to sign for the account since he’d be legally responsible for paying the bill.
It should be “family income” that matters but the bottom line will be whoever has the job will be paying/responsible the bill. In our house, my husband’s income is “our” income. And whatever money/income I made is “ours.” Just like the money my mother left me and the money from the sale of my parents’ home is “our” money, I had to add his name to the Money Market or he wouldn’t have access to it, even if I died, he wouldn’t be able to access that account if his name wasn’t on it. His being my husband had no impact if his name wasn’t on that account.
We had an issue with Cingular wireless quite a few years ago. I signed all the checks since I paid the bills but my name wasn’t on the account. I learned this when I tried to change the account. After a fight on the phone, and the Supervisor calling back to appease me and not lose the account, my husband had to add my name to the account in order for me to have control. It was an oversight on our part. We didn’t make the same mistake when we changed cell phone providers...my name is on every account we have now.
Ack! That happened to a friend of mine, too. So, she wasn’t on the mortgage or Deed.
I didn’t have a job/income when we bought our first house and when we bought our second house. However, my name was on both mortgages/is on the mortgage and Deed. I had to be at Settlement and sign every document along with my husband.
Sounds like a “keep the hoy-poloy from having a phone” game.
I prefer to refer to myself as “Queen” and I almost have kids and husband convinced ;)
You know that you did get me thinking...
With the impending imposition of Sharia Law in Western Societies, clearly Muslim women will not be allowed to purchase cell phones (credit or not) without their husband’s authorization, as allowing the purchase would definitely violate the Koran.
The problem is, they made no effort to determine whether or not this woman could pay. They denied her the phone because she couldn’t give them a business phone number.
The same has happened to me for the same reason, I’ve got a six figure income.
Of, for goodness sake. What a STUPID comment.
Thats me! My one real skill in life is the ability to talk others into paying my bills on time. My parents had taken out a small college loan for me and paid it back themselves so I've always had pretty good credit.
My husband and I went to buy a car and I had to be the primary buyer because my credit got us better financing.
My husband looked at the guy and said, "Do you realize she doesn't have a job?" They didn't care. LOL!
Could be. You never know what lies they tell when reporting.
Interesting.
So how much does she make being a stay at home mom?
It didn’t say that in the article though. It did say “The policy is not meant to target moms alone, but anyone the company feels may not be able to afford a phone.” Seems fair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.