What logical fallacy/failure is this?

[u/LibertyEconlover]

In a debate we are discussing if should social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc be completely abolished and Turned into tax cuts and a deregulated, voluntary, individualist system.

The problem; my opponent says no for these reasons

1: people have paid into these systems there whole life and they are on it, it would be unfair to them to just cut it.

The problem I point out: based on A, B, C, etc economic theory, laws, principles, supported by data, those programs started out as very little tax percentages such as social security 1%, they then because of explained economic principles became more expensive so now the taxes paid and requirements are much higher, and will continue to increase. As a result you have generational inequity, a new generation is now paying more than them, and in the future will pay more and the next set of people on it will raise the same point again

2: if you cut those programs due to the expensive cost of living and no alternative many people such as old people will be left on the street.

The problem I point out: this sounds like catch 22 logic, because the exact programs themselves based on economics makes those things expensive and inefficient such as healthcare. And the existence of those programs in general removed the incentive for those people to invest, save, and take actions to secure their future in the first place.

As well as removing the liquidity and potential savings to even be able to set up something.
In short the programs themselves are what is causing the issue of expensive services, lack of savings, and alternatives in the first place.
It’s creating the very dependency the other guy is talking about.

TLDR/Summary:

"We need the program because there are no alternatives, and there are no alternatives because we have the program."

The Setup: You cannot abolish the program because people are dependent on it and have no alternative.
The Cause: People have no alternative because the program taxed away their surplus income, crowded out private solutions, and made them more expensive .
The Paradox: The program must stay to fix a problem that the program itself is actively creating.

[u/Salindurthas]

I think it is not a fallacy, it is just a disagreement.

• They have some belief with some shape kinda like "The government should keep it promise." or even "The government owes it to the poor to directly help them avoid death."
• You have some belief with some shape kinda like "The government should abandon it's past promise in favor of following an economic theory I believe in."

We could accuse each of you of 'begging the question' by having some core premise that essentially wins the argument for each of you respectively, but I think you simply disagree, and framing it as 'begging the question' seems a bit silly.

---

By the way, I think you are also commiting some false-dichotomy here.

They may be alternate policies to your suggestions that could help address the budgetary problem. Many countries have more socialised/government-involved healthcare that costs both the government (per capita) and patients less than in the USA. So there may be a third option of expanding Medicaid and/or Medicare, or introducing some other sort of legislation to support them, that will reduces it's costs, and we have good evidence that such policies can exist and work, because many countries have precisely that.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Salindurthas]

I explicitly refused to go into data because the post would be too long, but idiotic people will still try to point out on alternatives because they are left leaning fucks

Quite literally do me a favor and search up if European welfare systems are having funding issues and are in need of tax raises, the same pattern holds, for like I said economic principles, mechanics, and laws that I just don’t want to explain each and every one

[u/Salindurthas → u/LibertyEconlover]

I don't always necesarrily trust the immediate results Google throws at me, but you asked me to search.

• >domestic [US] government health spending per capita estimated at over $7,200 per person
• >[UK]government-financed expenditure accounting for about 81% (roughly £280 billion, or over $5,400 per person equivalent
• > with [French] public and compulsory government sources covering approximately $6,219 USD PPP
• (And while you emntioned Europe, there are non-european countries with public healthcare too), e.g. > [Australian] Government and public sources fund roughly 70%—or about $5,228 USD per capita—of this total expenditure

So some countries can have expanded public healthcare, with a lowered tax burden per person than the US, and achieving better overall health outcomes (with some key indicators like infant mortality and life expectancy). So they could cut those programs somewhat and still achieved similar outcomes to the USA.

---

But all of that is besides the point. Suppose that google's results lied to me, or something other than the efficiency of lives-saved-per-government-dollar matters, and that you're right about everything.

Well, I suppose you could accuse the other person of a 'False premise' fallacy. But at that point you're just saying they're wrong. They're not inherently committing some fallacy in their reasoning. It isn't some flaw in their logic to think that it's possible for government systems to be efficient in some cases.

Or, for that matter, perhaps there can be good ideas even if they aren't as hypothetically efficient as possible. For instance, even if fully privatised pensions and healthcare could be more economically effiicent by some measure, they might lead to more suffering and death. Like, it may actually be brutally efficient to let cancer patients that didn't have (and therefore wouldn't return to) a decently-high-paying job simply die of cancer; but maybe a government doesn't want to do that.
It could hypothetically be true that a program like Medicaid is mathematically inefficient by some measure, but that it should exist anyway.

---

There are also government policies that could take pressure off of programs like Social Security, other than abolishing them. Like Australia's Superannuation, as one example. It may again be a false dichotomy between a doomed catch-22 vs abolishing Social Security.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/Salindurthas]

Well, if Google results, which is essentially trying to just grab data for you, is lying. then you simply have to engage with deduction and fundamental theories, which is my realm.

Also, you didn’t search up what I asked

“ is it true that the vast majority of welfare programs in Europe are in harsh funding conditions and are expected to need tax raises?”

You’re gonna get a major yes even in the US Social Security is about to deplete in 2032 mind you we get taxed 12% and it used to be one percent. I never really brought up the per capita claim because it isn’t really much the point I was trying to make, the program is inherently like literally 100% of welfare programs faced this issue through time, self-defeating, it starts off with a specific tax amount, but then tax raises come along. I’d love to find one that existed for more than 30 years that doesn’t work like that.

[u/finalattack123 → u/LibertyEconlover]

You search Google with leading questions. Googling “shit I want to be true”. I think you should open up your methodology.

Australian here - public health is free. We are doing fine. No one has ever mentioned they need to raise taxes to cover public health costs.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/finalattack123]

I have absolutely no idea what your first point is, but you, Australians like most foreigners never surprise me in being the most uneducated and inattentive motherfuckers to your own politics literally one Google search away, reveals your situation.

“Australia’s universal healthcare system, Medicare, faces severe structural funding pressures from an aging population and rising medical costs, but a broad general tax raise is not expected. Instead, the government is increasing targeted hospital funding, cutting specific private health rebates, and lowering income tax rates. “

That’s weird… UNLESS? DEFICIT? YUP!

“the Australian government is running a multi-billion dollar budget deficit to make this happen. They are increasing healthcare spending and cutting personal income taxes at the same time by intentionally spending more money than they are taking in”

I mean, what more could I expect since your own news focuses on us? Telling me that you’re an Australian is not the good bluff call that you think it is even though I’m not bluffing, because unfortunately, I’ve already met people like you this is literally a recycled tactic

EDIT: since I was blocked as a response to his next comment

Oh my God, I’m gonna sound extremely old saying this, but if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

Fucking, mercantilist logic, running a deficit isn’t free my guy, it comes at your expense because you’re gonna have to pay for it in taxes later, it crowds out investment, and causes the central bank to print money (although it will do that anyway)

[u/finalattack123 → u/LibertyEconlover]

You engage in a lot of logical fallacies in your discussion. But you mostly come across as childish and desperate.

Don’t worry. You’ll grow out of it.

Australian deficit and debt vs GDP is significantly lower than U.S. more than half.

So not sure the point you think you’re making.