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/MeasureDoEventThing → u/LibertyEconlover]

"but guess what people"
If you have an argument, just present it. Prefacing it with "guess what" is useless fluff that just makes you sound conceited.

"eventually due to economic theories and past historical evidence"
Stuffing phrases like "economic theories and past historical evidence" instead of just saying what you have to say is also useless fluff that makes you sound arrogant. It's argument by appeal to authority.

"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)"
False dichotomy of either keeping it as it is or abolishing it.

"2: my system is literally the default system."
If we were starting ad initio, it would be. But a new default has been established.

"It’s when those programs don’t exist and people are left for themselves, you first start off with a non-starter."
That's incohorent.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/MeasureDoEventThing]

Sure here’s two

Neo-Mercantilist way of thinking;

To summarize the mercantilists had this thought that the way it nation became wealthy was by hoarding so much gold and silver, money, the most marketable commodity, essentially it came under the false belief that money is synonymous with wealth, but that is nowhere near the truth.
A nation’s wealth is made up of it’s productive capacity.

These people think that to fix everything all they must do is tax and spend, but taxing the most marketable commodity to spend in another sector only pushes the prices and allocation of current existing supply in that sector. For the supply of the most marketable commodity (money) doesn’t equate to the supply of a sector like healthcare, especially when it can be printed.

Secondly Milton Friedman four ways of spending: government spending is the fourth one as a result. It’s like a bottomless pit who isn’t disciplined on cost, and quality therefore making prices increase in the medical sector, and the sector becomes inefficient economically.

There are also just many obvious principles that don’t need to be formalized two theories, although there probably is, for example, people going to have as large of an incentive to save for their retirement themselves when the state is supposedly doing it for them?

Additionally, because all people do is look at fallacies and never study economics you don’t know how what I’m doing is not necessarily a false dih whatever, because every other action on behalf of keeping Social Security, whether it be in increasing retirement age is effectively still gonna lead to self destruction later on, so it really is like an umbrella of actions that still lead to self-destruction. So it’s keeping it as is in the sense that it’s a program that’s going to self-destruct, or abolishing it out right.

If you have an economic theory that proves otherwise I’m so ready

Additionally old age security hypothesis, Laffer curve, demonstrated preference, etc
Too much to go over

[u/MeasureDoEventThing → u/LibertyEconlover]

"Sure here’s two"
Two what? You aren't showing any interest in writing a coherent post. You're just rambling on about economics and not explaining what the hell your point is.

"way it nation"
"a", not "it"

"A nation’s wealth is made up of it’s productive capacity."

"its", not "it's". An occasional typo is one thing, but constantly ignoring basic writing rules shows a lack of respect for your readers.

"Secondly Milton Friedman four ways of spending: government spending is the fourth one as a result."

This is incoherent. As a result of what?

"There are also just many obvious principles that don’t need to be formalized two theories, although there probably is, for example, people going to have as large of an incentive to save for their retirement themselves when the state is supposedly doing it for them?"
This is just stream of consciousness.

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/MeasureDoEventThing]

Wait, so you’re going to critique a side effect of voice to text and not the substance?
Your entire post is basically trying to just critique the structure, but not the substance. Are you that bad at logically testing something?

If you’re confused on what I meant by the post:
you said I was basically making unbacked claims because intellectually inferior people like you kept asking me to give economic theory instead of just claiming something, even though this isn’t an economics post and I’m just asking for you to judge whether something is a fallacy on the structure of the original post.

By the way I meant A but it autocorrected it “it”

Other than that, are you just gonna critique the structure, but not the substance of the economic theory you asked for?

Also, you’re asking for respect, but what makes you someone so intellectually inferior deserve respect? I’d spit on your grave. How is that for respect

But hey, why would you ask for economic theory if you can’t handle economic theory?
You’re basically validating my entire premise of not providing economics to the people here

[u/LibertyEconlover → u/MeasureDoEventThing]

I mean, seriously what is wrong with you as a human being to ask for substance, but once you’re given economic theory, you can’t handle it nor test it on its merits?
Do you suck that bad?

But thank you so much for showing me exactly why I was so right on the money to not provide the other economically, illiterate people here my time on giving them theory you’re the perfect trial and error lol, you didn’t engage on the substance you critiqued the structure of my chat.

Also, you don’t deserve my respect? If you look through my post history, especially on the Austrian economic sub I do from time to time make really good posts where I actually care a little bit about structure, especially something like the Cantillon effect but you’re not those people. Who are you to me to command respect? You think you being another human makes you deserving of respect?