By Plenary Sessions: Tanel Kiik

The style is critical and inquisitive, employing rhetorical questions to expose the government's logic and inaction. The speaker appeals both to logic (the consistency of the tax impact) and to social justice, referencing the concerns of the wider public and a petition. The tone is formal, addressing the Vice-Chairman and the rapporteur.

The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and analytical, focusing on logical argumentation and the posing of questions regarding concrete plans and financial needs. The speaker acknowledges that the issues raised are broader than the draft bill under consideration, all while maintaining a respectful and inquiring tone.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, expressing dissatisfaction with the government's position and labeling the budget "irresponsible" and "unjust." Logical arguments are employed, relying on budget figures and stark contrasts (tax breaks for the wealthy versus special needs care). The style is formal, yet it contains a powerful moral appeal ("contrary to common sense") and rhetorical questions.

The style is formal and critical, posing the question directly to the Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Minister of Finance. The speaker employs logical argumentation, relying on data and contrasting the critical needs of the social sector with the tax benefits granted to the wealthy, in order to highlight the injustice of the government's priorities.

The rhetorical style is formal and directly confrontational, employing sharp rhetorical questions to challenge the minister's position. The speaker relies on a logical argument, emphasizing the danger of social inequality ("the gap is widening") if state intervention proves insufficient.