Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:
Quote from @Nicholas Misch:
DUMBEST "protection" ever! This one really fires me up! So I can go drop $100k+ cash for a car right this very moment, but I can't invest it in certain products (often with the best terms) because I'm just a dummy and have to be protected. If I had the very rare fortitude to save $100k (only 15% of Americans have $100k or more in savings) then I should be able to invest it any way I see fit. This is nothing other then financial discrimination. Sorry, rant over.
@Nicholas Misch, In principle I agree with you. However someone who buys a $100k car in cash almost certainly can buy these investments. So, a $30k car is a more appropriate example.
Also, lets be fair. These aren't products with "the best terms". They are products with the higher risk with more potential reward AND where the minimum investment is substantial for someone of modest means.
Before the regulations go away we need to do away with social welfare programs in my opinion. Then people can start to be responsible for themselves more.
I guess that fact that you changed the example from a $100k car to a $30k car does not change my perspective that its MY money my choice and not the governments business. Also what you and I consider the "best terms" is relative. I consider high risk high reward the best terms for me.
We can agree on the need for removal of some "social welfare" programs, however I hardly think it should have anything to do with my ability to put my hard earned and saved money where ever I darn well please.