Impact of RMD on credit worthiness
I feel like this has nothing to do with income, and as such RMDs will not really help or harm you. After a person passes, credit card companies are unlikely to collect any outstanding balance.  Debts cannot be inherited, however, assets can be made to stand for debts.  Many assets pass to heirs without the probate process and in some cases all of them pass this way.  This leaves creditors with nothing and having to write off the balance. Even if assets do pass through probate heirs may dispute the creditors.  In that case credit card balances may not be high enough justify hiring a lawyer to fight for payment; or, if they do the judge may be unsympathetic and offer nothing or pennies on the dollar.    The bottom line is that they probably see you, or your demographic, as a poor credit risk and reduced their exposure by lowering your limit.  While that is not what they told you, they probably have to carefully structure what they say to avoid any discrimination claims. "My understanding is that credit card companies are allowed to accept retirement income as part of the income that would qualify you for credit. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued a final rule amendment to Regulation Z (the regulations around Truth in Lending Act) in 2013 in response to some of the tightening of credit that resulted from the Credit CARD Act of 2009.  The final rule allows for credit issuers to ""consider income and assets to which such consumers have a reasonable expectation of access."" (Page 1)  On page 75, it outlines some examples: Other sources of income include interest or   dividends, retirement benefits, public assistance, alimony, child support, and separate   maintenance payments.... Current or reasonably expected income   also includes income that is being deposited regularly into an account on which the consumer is   an accountholder (e.g., an individual deposit account or joint account). Assets include, for   example, savings accounts and investments. Fannie Mae explicitly mentions IRA distributions in its Documentation Requirements on mortgage applications.  For them, they require that the income be ""expected to continue for at least three years after the date of the mortgage application."" Lenders can reject or lower your credit limit for just about any reason that they want, but it seems appropriate for you to include your retirement distributions in your income for credit applications." The actual policy will vary based on the specific bank.  But, if I were in your shoes I'd include RMDs in my stated income for credit card purposes.
"There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also ""buy"" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business." One reason that a bond can be significantly less than face value is because people are seeking better investments elsewhere, so for example if a bond doesn't mature for another 10 years, that 20% increase in face value isn't very attractive when compared to say leaving your money in the stock market for 10 years. Another reason could be that the credit-worthiness of the issuer has collapsed and people expect that there is a fairly good chance they are not going to make the payment. This could be what you would see if for example it was a one year time until maturity, but it has a value of 40% of the face value. There is a risk, because they can simply not pay. For example people who bought Greek bonds. I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv.  The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated  beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through  entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries.   For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the  IRA that pass through  the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking  the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish.  Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year.  The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out  in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year.  Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries  directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax  might be due. However, beneficiaries can deduct the portion of estate tax paid by the estate from the income tax that they have to pay on the IRA withdrawals. Estate planning is very tricky business, and even lawyers very competent in estate and trust issues fall far short in their understanding of tax law, especially income tax law. There were several areas where the mortgage and car loan have affected your credit.  The mortgage had the following impacts, The car loan (purchased shortly after the house) had the following impacts, You did not mention your payment history, but since you had an 800 prior to the house purchase, we can assume that your payment history is current (nothing late). You did not mention your credit utilization, but you want to keep your utilization low (various experts suggest 10%, 20% and 30% as thresholds).  The down payment on the house likely drained your available funds, and replacing the car may have also put stress on your funds.  And when you buy a house, often there are additional expenses that further strain budgets. My guess is that your utilization percentage has increased.  My suggestion would be to reduce your utilization ratio on your revolving accounts.  And since you have plenty of credit lines, you might want to payoff the car. Your Chase card has a good age, which helps with age of credit, and though you will find experts that say you should only have 2-4 revolving accounts (credit cards), other experience shows that having accounts with age on them is a good thing.  And having a larger number of accounts does not cause problems (unless you have higher utilization or you miss payments). You did not mention whether the Chase card has any fees or expenses, as that would be a reason to either negotiate with Chase to reduce or eliminate the fees, or to cancel the card. Have you checked your credit report for errors?  You can get a free report from each of the three bureaus once per year. The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio.  Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer. No, it won't affect your score until your statement is posted. Paying your bill before your statement is posted is actually a good way to keep your credit utilization low. If you're worried about high credit utilization negatively affecting your credit score, consider paying your bill several times a month to ensure that when your final monthly statement is posted, your utilization is still low. When my credit limit was very low while I was in college, I did this almost every month, and I've seen other sites recommend this practice as well. From creditkarma.com: The easiest way [to lower credit utilization] is to make credit card payments more than once a month so that your balance never gets too high. and creditcards.com: Consider making payments to creditors more than once each month. Otherwise, if you put a major expense -- like a new appliance -- on a credit card, even if you plan to pay it off, your FICO score may take a hit. The reason is that credit scores are calculated as a snapshot in time, so if that happens to be right after you charged a new $700 washing machine, your utilization ratio will look worryingly high. Remember, though, that it's best to have some balance on your card when your statement is posted (assuming you pay it off in full each month), because as the chart shows, 0% utilization is about as bad as utilization > 31-40%:  Also, remember that credit utilization affects your credit score in real time, so if you have high utilization one month but a lower utilization the next month, the hit to your score will disappear once a statement with low utilization is posted. "US based so I don't know how closely this translates to the UK, but generally speaking there are three things that contribute to a strong credit score. Length/volume of credit history. This is a combination of how many accounts appear in your history along with how long they have been open.  Having a series of accounts that were maintained in good standing looks better than only having one.  Maintaining an account in good standing for a prolonged period (3+ years) is better than a bunch of short term items.  ""Ideally"" your credit history should contain a mix of term loans that were paid per contract and a few (1?) revolving account that shows ongoing use.  The goal is to show that you can handle ongoing obligations responsibly, and manage multiple things at the same time. Utilization. Or how much you currently owe vs how much people have agreed to lend you.  Being close to your limits raises questions about whether or not you can really handle the additional debt.  Having large availability raises questions about whether you would be able to handle it if you suddenly maxed things out.  Finding the correct middle point can be challenging, the numbers I have seen thrown around most by the ""experts"" is 20-30% utilization. Recent Activity. Or how much new debt have you taken on?  If someone is opening lots of new accounts it raises red flags.  Shopping around for a deal on a auto loan or mortgage before settling on one is fine.  Opening 5 new credit lines in the past 6 months, probably going to knock you down a bit.  One of the concerns here is have you had the accounts long enough to demonstrate that you will be able to handle them in the long term. One route that was suggested to me in my early years was to go take out a 6mo loan from a bank, and just place the money in a CD while I made the payments.  Then repeat with a longer term.  Worst case, you can cash out the CD to pay off the loan in an emergency, but otherwise it helps show the type of history they are looking for. All that said, I have to agree with Pete B's answer.  Don't play the credit game if you don't really need to.  Or play it just enough to stay in the game and plan your finances to avoid relying on it.  (Advice I wish I had taken long ago.)" In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.