The similarity is in the corruption that allows those super rich to largely remain untouched in these things. My thought that retirement should be untouchable is possibly based on a false premise. It's my understanding that 'retirement' is something that people pay regularly into out of their income and in a best case there will be at least some interest to boot. Realizing that's never guaranteed, I would think that at the least, the saved money would be available. Wouldn't it be the same idea as banks insuring your funds in the event of a robbery? Of course any stock market investment is a gamble so I understand false projections lead to new balance sheets. And if the entire retirement is based on a gamble then that's what you've signed up for. Perhaps this will better help you explain what I'm missing. Is it not similar to us paying into social security because it's our money and therefor shouldn't have ever been touched by the gov in the first place.
When you say retirement, you are actually talking about many different things, so I don't think you can put all of the different types of retirement plans and programs into one little box like that. For some people retirement is only a 401k or SEP and that's it. The only retirement they'll have is what they save. Other types, the defined benefit types, are various types of pension plans. Some people contribute to them, and others don't.
So I think there is a big difference between people who have their own money invested and those that just have someone else's promises invested.
