By Months: Annely Akkermann

The opposition (Isamaa, SDE) is primarily criticized on procedural grounds, specifically for rejecting Isamaa's 200 million euro budget amendment proposal as non-compliant. The speaker also criticizes the inefficient targeting of tax benefits, noting that broad measures (such as the concession for 7+ seater buses) fail to effectively reach the intended 700 large families. Furthermore, he criticizes politicians who speak of abolishing the motor vehicle tax, arguing that this interferes with the stabilization of the car market.

The opposition is directed at colleagues who present inaccurate claims (e.g., the coalition partner's difficulties in processing bills) or who question the quality of lawmaking. The speaker rejects the comparison of lawyers' discussions to a puppy, emphasizing the importance of democratic oversight. The criticism is aimed at correcting misleading perceptions and is rather procedural in nature.

No direct opposition is expressed. The speaker maintains a neutral attitude toward the various viewpoints and is seeking information rather than voicing criticism.

He/She consistently rejects the Social Democrats' proposals to raise subsistence benefits and provide free kindergarten spots, justifying this stance with fiscal discipline. He/She criticizes Isamaa's proposed amendments, deeming them non-compliant. He/She disputes Andrei Korobeinik's claims regarding the tax system, demanding more precise arguments. Nevertheless, he/she maintains a constructive approach, explaining his/her positions in detail.

Sharply criticizes Isamaa's tax policy, particularly their earlier decisions concerning the taxation of working pensioners. Refutes Urmas Reinsalu's claims regarding the deterioration of residents' livelihood, labeling them as "false claims." Opposes the bills submitted by the opposition, recommending that they be rejected.

The approach avoids direct confrontation, instead focusing on raising questions and seeking clarification. On the land tax issue, it supports the government's position against the Isamaa faction's proposal, but bases this support on facts, not emotion. The opposition's stance is constructive and relies on a substantive analysis of the policy measures.

The speaker mildly criticizes the low participation of EKRE members in the work of the Finance Committee, noting that "EKRE members very rarely attend the committee's sessions." He rejects the opposition's tax reduction proposals, doing so with political rather than personal arguments. The criticism is moderate and constructive.