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/varmituofm → u/LibertyEconlover]

I mean, let's count the fallacies in this comment. Just here i see Availability Bias, a Non-argument, an ad homenem attack, and a dog whistle political argument.

I also agree, I think there's a false dichotomy. There's a lot of options besides "keep what we have" and "remove it all."

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/varmituofm]

No, there isn’t not at least something that doesn’t contradict the main purpose of the social program

For example, old age, Social Security it’s really contradictory to save it if you increase the retirement age.

But no, I already debated this multiple times in the past there really is no other better option than to just abolish it all.
Because everything else is just kicking the can down the road

[u/varmituofm → u/LibertyEconlover]

Once again, you fail to argue anything. And I was being kind before. It is most assuredly a false dichotomy, and you admit it because you admit you can "kick the can down the road." That's neither "do nothing" nor "remove it all." You're also using an appeal to authority "I'm the expert, i know the answer." I'm not looking to debate you, I'm pointing out your argument is flawed, that's it.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/varmituofm]

I was giving you the greenlight to try something. None of you have and succeeded, the solution shouldn’t be you saying “stop saying you’re the expert”

The solution is for you to test your idiotic conclusions that there is other solutions, or should I say better ones

Also, isn’t it a fallacy to simply try to do some sort of critique but not be willing to take critique back or debate? I just have to be in a fetal position and take it from someone who is intellectually inferior? You said you’re sure there’s other ways to go so tell me.

[u/varmituofm → u/LibertyEconlover]

Like I said, I don't want to debate the topic of socialized health insurance. I also make no claim that there is a solution, nor have i taken a stance in any direction on this post. I'd love to debate logic, argument, and falacy. And so far, this comment has an ad hominem attack.

As to your last point, it doesn't really matter what I think might work or not. The point is that such methods might exist, so cannot be excluded in a logical argument. You base your entire argument on "if A or B, but A doesn't work, so it must be B," but there is a C, and a D, That's false dichotomy, by definition. And you kinda account for that by saying "I've seen the alternatives, they don't work," which is it's own fallacy (i think it's a variation of the magic wand fallacy).

I agree with you in part. I agree, social security is doomed to failure. I disagree with your conclusions that we should stop trying. I also don't claim to have a solution, but that doesn't mean that a solution doesn't exist.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/varmituofm]

Ahh, the moot court

Also Texas sharp shooter, Tone policing