Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Draft Security Tax Act (512 SE) – First Reading
2024-10-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
Supports the general concept of the security levy, but stresses that the burden of solidarity must primarily fall upon those who are less secure and lower-earning. Opposes the idea of applying the solidarity tax to banks and the digital economy, which is not recommended (reason: increased burden on accrued profits). References the Lithuanian example of a temporary solidarity tax and uses it as a point of reference that the topic is politically viable. Thus, the stance is pragmatic and focused on directing solidarity—but with strictly limited beneficiaries.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The text emphasizes the links between the security tax, VAT, and income tax, and their impact on vulnerable groups. It highlights that large profits from banks and the digital economy should not be the targets of the solidarity tax, referring to the Lithuanian practice as a comparison. It uses terms such as “solidarity tax” and “profits at the expense of people” and employs examples, but deep technical analysis is lacking.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
A tone emphasizing criticism of local politics and ethical accountability; it uses rhetorical questions (“Why don't banks have to be solidary…?”) and contrasts different tax regulations. It combines an emotional atmosphere of solidarity with the contextualization of problems (the vulnerable vs. large corporations). It uses examples and references, employing clear, argumentative, and thought-provoking language.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main groups being opposed or criticized are banks and the large profits generated by the digital economy, which, according to the author, should not be put forward as candidates for the solidarity tax. The criticism is policy-based (specifically against extending the tax to these groups), not personal, and it emphasizes the injustice inherent in expanding the scope of solidarity. The author does not indicate any moments of compromise but instead presents a firm condition: solidarity must remain focused on the vulnerable.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
National level, Estonian context; it mentions Lithuania as a point of comparison and refers to the Minister of the Interior's comment made during the information hour, but primarily focuses on the discussion of the Estonian security tax. It demonstrates a debate taking place at the national level.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
It is emphasized that the solidarity tax must be directed towards those in need, and there is concern that the large profits generated by banks and digital enterprises might escape taxation. The general solidarity-based approach is supported, but there is a desire to limit the burden placed on major profit generators; there is criticism regarding the taxation of banks and digital firms. As noted, Lithuania is cited as an example, but there is no explicit readiness to recommend a full expansion.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The text emphasizes solidarity and the protection of vulnerable individuals, focusing on a fairer distribution of the tax burden and safeguarding vulnerable groups during the financing of security operations. Questions of social justice and economic equality are the main focus; other social topics are absent.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The draft legislation under consideration is the Security Tax Act (512 SE), first reading. He points out that the spirit of solidarity must be directed toward the vulnerable, and that taxing the banking and digital sectors is not recommended. He does not propose comprehensive amendments to specific sections, but emphasizes that the structure must be tailored to the specific condition, and the Lithuanian example is used as an argument.
1 Speeches Analyzed