Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes a static proportion of "lazy" or unethical people. I think the counterargument is one of moral hazard: if you reward laziness, more and more people will decide to be lazy. There is also a motivational issue -- many people (I suspect) will find it harder to work for a living if they sense that their hard-earned money is taxed and given away to freeloaders.
> if you reward laziness, more and more people will decide to be lazy. Potentially, but I'm still interested in my thought experiment. What if a) It gets better, using some metric of better. at the same time as: b) Some people are lazy. Even if b) is a larger number than at present, does that matter? It doesn't to me, but my intuition is that there are some people who will not tolerate others being lazy even if that'…
Fast forward 30 years, the system has been abused by the people (cheating, not even working the necessary days) and politicians (they lock the votes with those helps, socialist party has been in power for 30 years nonstop at Andalusia, PER has been one of the tools used to achieve that democratic kind of record). The regions is no longer that poor, but has not grown that much either (I am referring to the rural Andalusia, of course the cities and the touristic parts have a competitive economy). The problem is that northern Spain is paying for those helps, and people is fed up with that, as all that money has to be diverted from local projects. For example this sensation of (real) injustice is being used as fuel by the Catalan and Vasc nationalist parties, to ask for the independence.
That´s why I really think it´s that important to monitor this helps. They are necessary to help people to leave poverty behind, but if they are taken as a right to be enjoyed no matter what, people will no longer feel the need to work and give to the community. And after all somebody will have to produce that "right" and that will be and injustice too.