By Plenary Sessions: Annely Akkermann

Strongly supports the abolition of the tax hump as a reduction in labor taxes, justifying this by the need to improve competitiveness. It is emphasized that Estonia is becoming a high labor cost country and requires adjustments to its tax system. The proposal favors a proportional income tax system, where higher earners pay a larger share.

Supports fiscal discipline and budget balance, emphasizing the need to comply with European Union budget rules. It champions a progressive tax policy where high earners pay more in taxes, while low- and middle-income earners receive tax relief. It acknowledges that budget cuts are necessary, but stresses the importance of making well-considered choices when setting priorities.

Supports stronger financial supervision and the implementation of a stricter penal policy for economic crimes. It emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that fraud is not economically profitable, which indicates a commitment to valuing the fairness and integrity of the market economy.

Supports a balanced approach to improving the state budget—encompassing both expenditure cuts and revenue increases. Acknowledges that tax hikes are necessary for the functioning and security of the state. Seeks to alleviate the tax burden on average-wage earners by eliminating the 'tax hump' (maksuküür). Demonstrates understanding regarding the concerns of the business sector.

It supports fiscal discipline and the reduction of the budget deficit in line with European Union requirements. It takes a critical view of the reduction of business subsidies, acknowledging the potential negative impact this could have on tax revenues. It understands the complex impact that the budget deficit has on the economy.

It supports shifting the tax burden toward property taxes (such as the motor vehicle tax and land tax) and lowering labor taxes. It maintains that Estonia's tax burden must stay below 34% of GDP, but stresses the necessity of collecting additional revenue to fund national defense and social benefits. It criticizes universal benefits, favoring personalized, needs-based support instead.

Supports the institutional stability of the Bank of Estonia and the proper functioning of the Council. Economic views are not directly articulated in the speeches, but the importance of the central bank's governance structures is emphasized.