<p>作者：昆廷·福特雷尔</p>
<p>‘我比许多公民做得更好，因为我在最高水平上做出了贡献’</p>
<p>社会保障的设立是为了避免大萧条期间发生的那种灾难。（照片中的人物为模特。）</p>
<p>亲爱的昆廷，</p>
<p>如果我所有的贡献，加上我雇主的贡献，都投资于标普 500 指数，我的账户余额将超过 400 万美元。假设我的长期回报率为 7%-8%，我可以每月提取大约 3 万美元的可持续提款率。</p>
<p>如果只有我的贡献投资于标普 500 指数，而我的雇主贡献则交给政府，那么根据历史平均水平，到今年年底我的账户将接近 370 万美元。我比许多公民做得更好，因为我在最高水平上做出了贡献。</p>
<p>我 64 岁了。这让人感到沉重，不是吗？最后一位认真尝试私有化社会保障的总统是乔治·W·布什。我们都知道这是政治中的 “第三轨”，但这种不情愿可能对我们自己造成损害。数字不会说谎。</p>
<p>为什么要投资社会保障，而市场的回报会更丰厚呢？</p>
<p>退休人员</p>
<p>相关：我正在努力修复与继女的关系。我的丈夫和我应该告诉她我们如何分配资产吗？</p>
<p>您可以通过电子邮件将任何财务和伦理问题发送给 The Moneyist，邮箱是 qfottrell@marketwatch.com。The Moneyist 遗憾地无法单独回复问题。</p>
<p>社会保障的设立是为了避免这种在大萧条期间发生的灾难。</p>
<p>亲爱的退休人员，</p>
<p>原因是一个四个字母的词：风险。</p>
<p>社会保障福利几乎完全投资于专门为这些项目创建的特殊美国国债。资金存放在老年和幸存者保险信托基金以及残疾保险信托基金中。这些信托基金从财政部购买特殊发行的国债。这些债券由美国政府担保。从理论上讲，它们的风险极低。</p>
<p>虽然股票历史上提供了更高的回报，但它们也带来了更大的风险。股市在 2026 年达到了新高。随着这种增长而来的信心，以及信心带来的，嗯，愚蠢。你的理论假设过去的股票回报将在未来以类似的模式持续。例如，可以公平地说，美国在 COVID-19 大流行期间勉强避免了另一场大萧条，当时企业关闭，人们待在家中。</p>
<p>社会保障的设立正是为了避免这种灾难，这将导致无家可归、贫困和饥饿，就像 1930 年代那样。你正在用理论上的纸面回报——如果你的钱投资于股市——来交换内心的平静和安全。线索就在名字中。社会保障于 1935 年设立，作为保护美国人免受失业、老年和残疾困扰的安全网。</p>
<p>到 1930 年代初，美国正处于一场灾难性的经济崩溃之中。数百万美国人失去了他们的积蓄和工作。普通人借钱购买股票，因为他们相信这是稳赚不赔的，而他们没有任何安全网可以依靠，除了冰冷坚硬的街道。直到那时，陷入困境的人大多依赖家庭和社区。</p>
<p>与当时许多欧洲福利制度不同，1935 年的社会保障法依赖于工资贡献而非税收收入。这是一个文化和实际的决定。通过将福利与贡献挂钩，这种保险被宣传为工人所赚取的，而不是无偿给予他们的。对于那些对 “大政府” 感到厌恶的美国人来说，这使社会保障与公共援助或福利相区分。</p>
<p>股票提供更高的回报——也伴随更大的风险</p>
<p>在未来十年，社会保障面临两个挑战。第一个与资金挑战有关——更高的回报意味着这些福利将赚取更多的钱，从而保持资金充足。第二个是我们作为工人缺乏选择将这笔钱投资于股市的机会——这是为了集体利益而进行的。如果发生大萧条，理想情况下，社会保障仍然会存在。</p>
<p>关于这两个信托基金：老年和幸存者保险信托基金向符合条件的退休工人及其家庭支付每月的社会保障退休福利。资格直接与工人的历史相关，要求有足够的工作历史和获得的工作积分，通常为 40 个积分，或大约 10 年的工作。信任这个信托基金是关键；信托基金确保社会保障能够履行其义务，通过持有和管理这些工资税。</p>
<p>另一方面，社会保障残疾保险计划是一个由联邦工资税资助的保险计划，为残疾工人及其符合条件的家属提供现金福利。OASI 和 SSDI 主要通过《联邦保险贡献法》和《自雇贡献法》下的工资税资助，这些税也支持退休工人和残疾工人及其幸存者的福利。</p>
<p>社会保障残疾保险信托基金的资金充足到 2099 年，但一旦领取残疾保险的人达到社会保障的完全退休年龄，他们的福利将由 OASI 基金支付。预计到 2033 年，OASI 基金将不足以支付全额福利。因此，转移的人在到时也可能受到影响，但在此期间可能会发生许多政治操作。</p>
<p>就像一个将和平视为理所当然的文明一样，大萧条揭示了整个经济系统的脆弱性。为了应对 1929 年华尔街崩盘带来的严重经济后果，富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统及其政府迅速意识到，当他们让国家重新站起来时，美国人迫切需要一个永久性的国家社会保险制度。</p>
<p>这就是你 400 万美元问题的长答案。</p>
<p>相关：‘我们保持财务分开’：我的男朋友 50 多岁，没有退休储蓄——我应该有多担心？</p>
<p>通过将您的问题发送给《理财顾问》或在《理财顾问》Facebook 小组中发布您的困境，您同意匿名发布这些问题在 MarketWatch 上。</p>
<p>更多来自昆廷·福特雷尔的专栏：</p>
<p>‘我计划退出企业生活’：我 50 岁，有 40 万美元。我的妻子是一名教师。我能在 55 岁退休吗？</p>
<p>‘这是一个被忽视的灾难’：为什么这么多医院不接受癌症患者的医疗保险优势？</p>
<p>我们 70 多岁，没有继承人。我想从我们 70 万美元的 IRA 中捐赠 3 万美元给慈善机构——我丈夫不同意。谁对？</p>
<p>‘我 8 岁时就在铲人行道’：我是一位 73 岁的婴儿潮一代父亲，有两个孩子。这是我教他们的理财知识。</p>
<p>查看《理财顾问》的私人 Facebook 小组，成员们帮助解答生活中最棘手的财务问题。发布您的问题，或对最新的《理财顾问》专栏发表看法。</p>
<p>通过向道琼斯公司提交您的故事，MarketWatch 的出版商，您理解并同意我们可以在所有媒体和平台上使用您的故事或其版本，包括通过第三方。</p>
<p>-昆廷·福特雷尔</p>
<p>此内容由 MarketWatch 创建，MarketWatch 由道琼斯公司运营。MarketWatch 独立于道琼斯新闻通讯和《华尔街日报》出版。</p>
<p>（结束）道琼斯新闻通讯</p>
<p>04-30-26 0900ET</p>

标普 500 指数

标普 500 ETF - iShares

超大盘股价值 ETF - Vanguard

<p>这篇文章讨论了将社会保障缴款投资于标普 500 指数而不是政府债券的潜在财务收益。一位贡献者声称，如果他们的缴款投资于股市，他们将积累超过 400 万美元，突显了股市回报与社会保障福利之间的差距。文章强调了社会保障作为经济衰退时的安全网的重要性，尽管其回报低于股票，并且讨论了与股票投资相关的风险</p>

<p>By Quentin Fottrell</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：昆廷·福特雷尔</p>
</div><p>'I do better than many citizens because I've contributed at the highest level'</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘我比许多公民做得更好，因为我在最高水平上做出了贡献’</p>
</div><p>Social Security was created to avoid the kind of catastrophe that occurred during the Great Depression. (Photo subject is a model.)</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>社会保障的设立是为了避免大萧条期间发生的那种灾难。（照片中的人物为模特。）</p>
</div><p>Dear Quentin,</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>亲爱的昆廷，</p>
</div><p>If all my contributions, along with my employer's contributions, had been invested in the S&amp;P 500, my balance would be more than $4 million. I could take a very sustainable withdrawal rate of approximately $30,000 a month, assuming my long-term returns were 7%-8%.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果我所有的贡献，加上我雇主的贡献，都投资于标普 500 指数，我的账户余额将超过 400 万美元。假设我的长期回报率为 7%-8%，我可以每月提取大约 3 万美元的可持续提款率。</p>
</div><p>If only my contributions were invested in the S&amp;P 500 SPX, while my employer contributions went to the government, I'd have close to $3.7 million in the account at the end of this year, based on historical averages. I do better than many citizens because I've contributed at the highest level.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果只有我的贡献投资于标普 500 指数，而我的雇主贡献则交给政府，那么根据历史平均水平，到今年年底我的账户将接近 370 万美元。我比许多公民做得更好，因为我在最高水平上做出了贡献。</p>
</div><p>I am 64 years old. It's sobering, isn't it? The last president to make a serious attempt at privatizing Social Security was George W. Bush. We all know it's the proverbial &#34;third rail&#34; of politics, but that reluctance may be to our own detriment. The numbers don't lie.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我 64 岁了。这让人感到沉重，不是吗？最后一位认真尝试私有化社会保障的总统是乔治·W·布什。我们都知道这是政治中的 “第三轨”，但这种不情愿可能对我们自己造成损害。数字不会说谎。</p>
</div><p>Why invest in Social Security when the markets would be far more lucrative?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>为什么要投资社会保障，而市场的回报会更丰厚呢？</p>
</div><p>Retiree</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>退休人员</p>
</div><p>Related: I'm trying to fix my relationship with my stepdaughter. Should my husband and I tell her how we have divided our assets?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>相关：我正在努力修复与继女的关系。我的丈夫和我应该告诉她我们如何分配资产吗？</p>
</div><p>You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions at qfottrell@marketwatch.com. The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>您可以通过电子邮件将任何财务和伦理问题发送给 The Moneyist，邮箱是 qfottrell@marketwatch.com。The Moneyist 遗憾地无法单独回复问题。</p>
</div><p>Social Security was created to avoid this kind of catastrophe that occurred during the Great Depression.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>社会保障的设立是为了避免这种在大萧条期间发生的灾难。</p>
</div><p>Dear Retiree,</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>亲爱的退休人员，</p>
</div><p>The reason is a four-letter word: risk.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>原因是一个四个字母的词：风险。</p>
</div><p>Social Security benefits are invested almost entirely in special U.S. Treasury securities created specifically for these programs. The money is held in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. These trust funds purchase special-issue Treasury bonds from the Department of the Treasury. These bonds are backed by the U.S. government. In theory, they are extremely low-risk.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>社会保障福利几乎完全投资于专门为这些项目创建的特殊美国国债。资金存放在老年和幸存者保险信托基金以及残疾保险信托基金中。这些信托基金从财政部购买特殊发行的国债。这些债券由美国政府担保。从理论上讲，它们的风险极低。</p>
</div><p>While stocks have historically delivered higher returns, they also carry greater risk. The stock market has hit new highs in 2026. With this growth comes confidence, and with confidence comes, well, folly. Your theory assumes that past equity returns will persist in a similar pattern in the future. For example, it's fair to argue that the U.S. narrowly avoided another Great Depression during the COVID-19 pandemic when businesses shut down and people stayed home.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>虽然股票历史上提供了更高的回报，但它们也带来了更大的风险。股市在 2026 年达到了新高。随着这种增长而来的信心，以及信心带来的，嗯，愚蠢。你的理论假设过去的股票回报将在未来以类似的模式持续。例如，可以公平地说，美国在 COVID-19 大流行期间勉强避免了另一场大萧条，当时企业关闭，人们待在家中。</p>
</div><p>Social Security was created to exactly avoid this kind of catastrophe, which would lead to homelessness, poverty and hunger, as it did in the 1930s. You are trading those theoretical paper returns - had your money been invested in the stock market - for peace of mind and security. The clue is in the name. Social Security was created in 1935 as a safety net to protect Americans from the hardships of unemployment, in addition to old age and disability.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>社会保障的设立正是为了避免这种灾难，这将导致无家可归、贫困和饥饿，就像 1930 年代那样。你正在用理论上的纸面回报——如果你的钱投资于股市——来交换内心的平静和安全。线索就在名字中。社会保障于 1935 年设立，作为保护美国人免受失业、老年和残疾困扰的安全网。</p>
</div><p>By the early 1930s, the U.S. was in the grip of a catastrophic economic collapse. Millions of Americans had lost their life savings and had lost their jobs. Ordinary people had borrowed money to buy stocks because they believed they were a sure thing, and there was no safety net upon which they could fall, except the cold, hard asphalt of the streets. Until then, people who had fallen on hard times had, for the most part, relied on family and community.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>到 1930 年代初，美国正处于一场灾难性的经济崩溃之中。数百万美国人失去了他们的积蓄和工作。普通人借钱购买股票，因为他们相信这是稳赚不赔的，而他们没有任何安全网可以依靠，除了冰冷坚硬的街道。直到那时，陷入困境的人大多依赖家庭和社区。</p>
</div><p>Unlike many European welfare systems of the era, the Social Security Act of 1935 relied on payroll contributions rather than tax revenues. This was a cultural and practical decision. By connecting benefits to contributions, this insurance was pitched as something earned by workers rather than given to them for free. For Americans who grimace at the thought of &#34;big government,&#34; this distanced Social Security from public assistance or welfare.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>与当时许多欧洲福利制度不同，1935 年的社会保障法依赖于工资贡献而非税收收入。这是一个文化和实际的决定。通过将福利与贡献挂钩，这种保险被宣传为工人所赚取的，而不是无偿给予他们的。对于那些对 “大政府” 感到厌恶的美国人来说，这使社会保障与公共援助或福利相区分。</p>
</div><p>Stocks offer greater returns - and risk</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>股票提供更高的回报——也伴随更大的风险</p>
</div><p>There are two challenges facing Social Security over the next decade. The first relates to funding challenges - higher returns would have meant that those benefits would have earned far more money, thereby keeping the coffers healthy. The second speaks to the lack of choice we have as workers to take that money and invest it in the stock market - that's done for the collective benefit. If there were a Great Depression, there would, ideally, still be Social Security.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在未来十年，社会保障面临两个挑战。第一个与资金挑战有关——更高的回报意味着这些福利将赚取更多的钱，从而保持资金充足。第二个是我们作为工人缺乏选择将这笔钱投资于股市的机会——这是为了集体利益而进行的。如果发生大萧条，理想情况下，社会保障仍然会存在。</p>
</div><p>About those two trusts: The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund pays monthly Social Security retirement benefits to eligible retired workers and their families. Eligibility is tied directly to a worker's history and requires a sufficient work history and earned work credits, typically 40 credits, or about 10 years of work. Trust in this trust fund is key; the trust fund ensures that Social Security can meet its obligations by holding and managing those payroll taxes.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>关于这两个信托基金：老年和幸存者保险信托基金向符合条件的退休工人及其家庭支付每月的社会保障退休福利。资格直接与工人的历史相关，要求有足够的工作历史和获得的工作积分，通常为 40 个积分，或大约 10 年的工作。信任这个信托基金是关键；信托基金确保社会保障能够履行其义务，通过持有和管理这些工资税。</p>
</div><p>The Social Security Disability Insurance program, on the other hand, is a federal, payroll-tax-funded insurance program that provides cash benefits to disabled workers and their eligible dependents. Both OASI and SSDI are funded primarily through payroll taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Self-Employment Contributions Act, which also support benefits for retirees and disabled workers, as well as their survivors.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>另一方面，社会保障残疾保险计划是一个由联邦工资税资助的保险计划，为残疾工人及其符合条件的家属提供现金福利。OASI 和 SSDI 主要通过《联邦保险贡献法》和《自雇贡献法》下的工资税资助，这些税也支持退休工人和残疾工人及其幸存者的福利。</p>
</div><p>The Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund is good until 2099, but once a person receiving disability insurance reaches the Full Retirement Age for Social Security, their benefits are paid out of the OASI fund. It's projected that the OASI fund will be insufficient to pay full benefits in 2033. So those who transfer may also be impacted when the time comes, but lots of political maneuvers can happen between now and then.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>社会保障残疾保险信托基金的资金充足到 2099 年，但一旦领取残疾保险的人达到社会保障的完全退休年龄，他们的福利将由 OASI 基金支付。预计到 2033 年，OASI 基金将不足以支付全额福利。因此，转移的人在到时也可能受到影响，但在此期间可能会发生许多政治操作。</p>
</div><p>Just like a civilization that had taken peace for granted, the Great Depression revealed the fragility of the entire economic system. In response to the dire economic consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration quickly realized that, when they got the country back on its feet again, Americans desperately needed a permanent national system of social insurance.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>就像一个将和平视为理所当然的文明一样，大萧条揭示了整个经济系统的脆弱性。为了应对 1929 年华尔街崩盘带来的严重经济后果，富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统及其政府迅速意识到，当他们让国家重新站起来时，美国人迫切需要一个永久性的国家社会保险制度。</p>
</div><p>That's the long answer to your $4 million question.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这就是你 400 万美元问题的长答案。</p>
</div><p>Related: 'We keep our finances separate': My boyfriend is in his 50s with no retirement savings - how worried should I be?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>相关：‘我们保持财务分开’：我的男朋友 50 多岁，没有退休储蓄——我应该有多担心？</p>
</div><p>By emailing your questions to The Moneyist or posting your dilemmas on The Moneyist Facebook group, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>通过将您的问题发送给《理财顾问》或在《理财顾问》Facebook 小组中发布您的困境，您同意匿名发布这些问题在 MarketWatch 上。</p>
</div><p>More columns from Quentin Fottrell:</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>更多来自昆廷·福特雷尔的专栏：</p>
</div><p>'I plan to exit corporate life': I'm 50 and have $400,000. My wife is a teacher. Can I retire at 55?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘我计划退出企业生活’：我 50 岁，有 40 万美元。我的妻子是一名教师。我能在 55 岁退休吗？</p>
</div><p>'This is an overlooked catastrophe': Why do so many hospitals not accept Medicare Advantage for cancer patients?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘这是一个被忽视的灾难’：为什么这么多医院不接受癌症患者的医疗保险优势？</p>
</div><p>We're in our 70s with no heirs. I like donating $30,000 from our $700,000 IRA to charity - my husband disagrees. Who's right?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我们 70 多岁，没有继承人。我想从我们 70 万美元的 IRA 中捐赠 3 万美元给慈善机构——我丈夫不同意。谁对？</p>
</div><p>'I was shoveling sidewalks at 8 years old': I'm a 73-year-old boomer dad with two kids. Here's what I teach them about finance</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>‘我 8 岁时就在铲人行道’：我是一位 73 岁的婴儿潮一代父亲，有两个孩子。这是我教他们的理财知识。</p>
</div><p>Check out The Moneyist's private Facebook group, where members help answer life's thorniest money issues. Post your questions, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>查看《理财顾问》的私人 Facebook 小组，成员们帮助解答生活中最棘手的财务问题。发布您的问题，或对最新的《理财顾问》专栏发表看法。</p>
</div><p>By submitting your story to Dow Jones &amp; Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>通过向道琼斯公司提交您的故事，MarketWatch 的出版商，您理解并同意我们可以在所有媒体和平台上使用您的故事或其版本，包括通过第三方。</p>
</div><p>-Quentin Fottrell</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>-昆廷·福特雷尔</p>
</div><p>This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones &amp; Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此内容由 MarketWatch 创建，MarketWatch 由道琼斯公司运营。MarketWatch 独立于道琼斯新闻通讯和《华尔街日报》出版。</p>
</div><p>(END) Dow Jones Newswires</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>（结束）道琼斯新闻通讯</p>
</div><p>04-30-26 0900ET</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>04-30-26 0900ET</p>
</div>

'The numbers don't lie': If I had invested my Social Security in the S&P 500 I'd have $4 million. Is the system broken?

- 社会保障旨在防止经济崩溃引发的灾难。  
- 投资于股市可获得更高回报，但伴随更高风险。  
- 社会保障制度确保了退休人员的基本生活保障。

Dow Jones

核心美国价值 ETF - iShares

2 倍做多标普 500 ETF - Direxion

超大盘股成长 ETF - Vanguard

核心标普美国增长 ETF - iShares

全美成长股指数 MSCI ETF - Vanguard

美国大盘成长股 ETF - Charles Schwab

标普 500 ETF - SPDR

3 倍做多标普 500 ETF - ProShares

2 倍做多标普 500 ETF - ProShares

罗素 1000 成长指数 ETF - iShares

Avantis US Large Cap Value ETF

全美价值股指数 ETF - Vanguard

3 倍做多标普 500 ETF - Direxion

标普 500 ETF - Vanguard

“数字不会说谎”：如果我将我的社保金投资于标普 500 指数，我现在将拥有 400 万美元。这个系统是否存在问题？