Basically, it varies from the distribution your planning on using. Definitely, some Linux distributions are absolutely more secure in their default implementation than Windows, though for most people who are security conscious, every operating system is decent, though there are definitely privacy concerns with Windows.
Linux is open-source. Everything's transparent. In Windows, the work is done by Microsoft and the OS is closed-source. Therefore, the former is recommended as it eliminates this trust.
Well, most of the computer users use Windows, so it's reasonable to have more malicious intentions there. Also, people who're using Linux don't fall for crappy software. If I wanted to scam people, I wouldn't choose an OS whose users care about principles such as privacy.
However, your still relying on hardware which is closed source, so still not exactly perfect. Although, I don't agree with you that Linux users don't fall for the same things that Windows users do. Linux is just an alternative, using Linux doesn't nesscatrily mean you understand security, and how it works. Especially, how easy some Linux distributions have become to use now. Maybe, a couple of years ago I would have somewhat agreed with you, but distributions like Ubuntu now are very easy to use without anyone knows anything about Linux, especially when they only use it for certain applications available in the Ubuntu Software, and web browsing. Well, most of the computer users use Windows, so it's reasonable to have more malicious intentions there. Also, people who're using Linux don't fall for crappy software. If I wanted to scam people, I wouldn't choose an OS whose users care about principles such as privacy.
2. Some Linux based distributions (or "distros", as they're called in the community) strive to be as close to Windows as possible, and some don't. At that, if you choose to use Ubuntu, or Linux Mint, or MX Linux, your experience is gonna be arguably much better than if you try to start using Arch, or LFS.
Worth noting, that complexity doesn't mean more secure. Though, a distro which allows advanced configuration can be made to be more secure, or depending on the knowledge of the user editing it, could actually make it less secure. 3. Linux is, as a rule, way safer than windows. Then, as it was pointed above, your OS will be as safe as you make it. A whole lot of people move BILLIONS of dollars a day on Windows without a problem. It's true that Linux based distros get no viruses, but it's also true, if you do get one, there is also no antivirus software for it (other than ClamAV, as far as I know), so it's a double edged sword.
I'm not a fan of saying that as a general rule of thumb Linux is safer, it wildly differs on how the user uses the computer, which can definitely range wildly among users. For example, if you're downloading from unverified, and untrustworthy sources, while probably not equally at risk (due to the attack surface that Windows has), however it should be assumed that you're at equal risk. Although, Linux viruses definitely do exist, and even if we assume the possibility of a Linux virus gaining elevated permissions, there's still issues with exploiting programs that have vulnerabilities themselves. For example, your web browser which could potentially be a security risk. I would say that Linux is more hardened, due to some of the implementations of root, as well as the attack surface being much less than Windows. Although, bare in mind that there's definitely a legitimate risk for viruses etc, as Linux is still targetted by malicious users, since most servers are running on Linux. Most banks use Linux etc.
4. It's also true there are very few viruses meant to work on Linux, but the real reason (again, as far as I know) is that Linux has a very strong admin policy, and nobody can act as an admin without a password. So, ultimately, Linux based distros are as safe as the password you use on them.
Right, partially correct I'd say, but ultimately security comes down to how you use the operating system, the credentials used, how you store those credentials etc. 5. As a rule of thumb, Linux based distros are much less demanding on hardware than Windows, which allows you to run them on older PC's without a problem (the one I'm using now is 6 years old, and works beautifully).
Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones. 6. As beginner friendly as they may be, all Linux based distros have a learning curve, and you have to be willing to learn how to use them.
Which, if you aren't an advanced user is becoming simpler, and simpler as time goes on. Ubuntu, and the closer to Windows experience distros have come leaps, and bounds in recent years in terms of simplicity. 
