Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The opposition's stance on the national tax policy criticizes the uncertainty of the tax policy and the failure to deliver on promises. This position is strongly opposed to the government, criticizing the car tax and broader tax solutions as examples of inadequate governance. He stresses that promises have shifted, and taxes have changed spontaneously depending on the political climate. He points to the promise to end the “tax festival,” arguing that it has yielded no real benefit. The framing is primarily political and focused on outcomes, rather than being technical, and underscores the government's lack of credibility and accountability.

It addresses tax policy and social welfare, using specific examples such as the 2% income tax increase, the corporate income tax decision, changes to the car tax, and the 24% rise in VAT. It refers to the positions of the Chancellor of Justice in the context of constitutionality, showing that it is engaged and aware of the impact of tax reforms on various groups. It presents connections between the temporality and permanence of tax measures and emphasizes the alignment of these decisions with the state budget and those in society who require assistance.

The speech has a combative and irritated tone, employing an emotional and gripping style; it features emotional accusations and calls for the PM to assume responsibility; it utilizes rhetorical questions and powerful metaphors (e.g., the "tax circus") and references specific examples; formally delivered, yet containing a strong moralizing and sensationalist undertone.

There is insufficient data regarding activity patterns (the only text provided is a single speech). The context of the "pre-election period" and general criticism of the country's tax policy are highlighted, but there is no information regarding regular events or frequent appearances.

The primary adversary is the government and the prime minister, including the subsequent statements made by coalition partners. The criticism is aimed at tax policy, inadequacy, and the failure to fulfill promises. The rhetoric adopts a strongly opposing political stance where no compromise is made, and proposed changes voiced by weak opponents are critically reviewed. The intensity is high and focuses on political confrontation, not cooperation.

There is insufficient information regarding cooperation or bilateral relations; the address focuses primarily on criticism and confrontation directed at the government, referencing the coalition partner's earlier statements, but lacks a clear declaration of readiness for cooperation or mediation with other parties.

A discussion based at the national level; the direct impact is on the wider populace and the country's economy. The text also refers to the difficulties faced by rural areas and touches upon the situation of families, people with disabilities, and those living in the countryside as nationally significant examples.

An economically critical stance on the government's tax policy: opposition to the continuation of car and tax schemes and the temporary or permanent alteration of taxes. It cites examples concerning the 2% income tax, corporate income tax, VAT at 24%, and related promises. It recommends reducing taxes or establishing special conditions, as well as maintaining or expanding support materials aimed at children and families. It emphasizes that the impact of major tax hikes extends to lower-income groups and affects the affordability of healthy food. It demonstrates a spectrum of demands: tax reduction through certain measures and the protection or restoration of social support programs, but it does not present detailed alternative budgets.

The text highlights the struggles of vulnerable groups (people with disabilities, pensioners, those living in rural areas) and the seizure of their accounts. It also criticizes recent decisions, including the removal of support for large families, the reduction of the parental benefit ceiling, and the withdrawal of health insurance from stay-at-home mothers. The speech stresses social justice and the protection of rights, noting that risks associated with tax structures and pensions impact nutrition and livelihoods. Furthermore, it draws attention to the critical state of healthcare services and social guarantees ahead of the elections.

Specific legislative bills or progress are not mentioned; instead, a broader critique of the state's tax policy and social support measures is presented. Legislative priorities are not clearly defined; rather, the emphasis is on the necessity of change and the failure to implement it. Not enough data to determine what specific legislative steps the speaker/author would wish to introduce or support.