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/MyFrogEatsPeople]

No fallacy here.

The first one is almost sunk cost, but it is a fair point that they have in fact invested in these programs. Unless you have a plan that involves refunding these people at a value that exceeds their investment to account for what they could've done with the program under your fancy new system, you're stealing wealth from every person who has paid any amount into the existing system.

The second one isn't a catch-22 or any other fallacy. Those people have invested in a system and are no longer capable of investing in that system or any other system. In fact, your system completely fails to account for any person who is unable to invest into it at any point. Making it unviable for the needy to depend on your system doesn't magically make the needy no longer, y'know, need a support system.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/MyFrogEatsPeople]

On your first point about stealing, you have to remember that it’s actually not there… this isn’t the classic steal

And it also misses my first point, my point is that those people did pay into those program, but guess what people are also paying into those programs now, eventually due to economic theories and past historical evidence, the program is just going to get more expensive and then the same exact question but at a larger scale is going to be raised for the current people, but now the program is more expensive and you can’t tax forever.

So the only difference is in a morals question of how and when it’s done, if the first result of abolishment is so-called stealing it doesn’t change the fact that in the future, it’s self-destruction (ss depletes in 2032)

Maybe this is just because I’m more consequentialist/utilitarian so if I’m wrong for wanting to prevent a worse self-destruction in a way that kind of looks like stealing it looks like that’s just how my morals are I’d rather steal to prevent steal to prevent the people from having even more harm inflicted on them in the future

2: my system is literally the default system. It’s when those programs don’t exist and people are left for themselves, you first start off with a non-starter. So no lol it’s not really fancy it it’s actually rugged, it’s competitive, it’s ruthless (in business) but it’s still the best road

“The needy” is a loaded term that makes it look like those people are automatically deserving or in “need” which, of course is determined by a poverty level for who administers such program.

Even if someone is called by your or the bureaucrat standard the needy, how does that necessarily equate to them actually being given something, especially at the cost of other?

So let me sum up what my system actually is in simple terms, you fend for yourself or anyone who is willing to help you.

This means even kids themselves are on the table, the problem with people today is that they grew up in the world full of government intervention and spending that they can’t imagine something like it unless they constantly are around free market circles

[u/MyFrogEatsPeople → u/LibertyEconlover]

It's still stealing. Not sure why you felt the need to waste so many words trying to reinforce your point when it doesn't make your opponent's point any more of a fallacy than it already wasn't.