Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The first speech expresses strong opposition to the government’s economic policy, focusing specifically on the perceived preference in bank taxation and criticizing the overall economic strategy. The speaker stresses that the banks’ advance corporate income tax rate is 18%, while individuals will pay up to 24% income tax next year. Furthermore, the speaker views the government as reacting preferentially towards banks and showing favoritism toward specific sectors. The speaker also points to potential preferential treatment for the offshore wind sector and uses skeptical and critical language, which can be interpreted as establishing a general oppositional framework against the government’s current direction.

The first speech demonstrates knowledge of taxation and economic policy issues: it references the level of advance corporate income tax for banks and compares it with personal income tax, utilizing sector-specific comparisons and discussing the economic consequences. The speaker employs metaphors and examples (Nokia, throwing money to the wind) to clarify economic topics, indicating a solid grasp of tax policy. The second speech reveals an awareness of the Riigikogu's (Parliament's) rules of procedure (§70 right of reply), and a specific name (Andrei Korobeinik) is also mentioned in the context of procedural matters.

The tone of the speech is primarily combative and sarcastic, utilizing rhetorical questions and economic metaphors such as “money to the wind,” along with a reference to Nokia. The language used is emotional, but simultaneously narrative and argumentative. The second speech is formal and calm in tone, focusing on legal references and clarity for the purpose of an effective rebuttal.

The speeches took place on the same day, February 18, 2025, during the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) sitting. The first speech was a debate focused on the discussion surrounding the first reading of Draft Bill 535 OE; the second was for clarifying issues related to legislative procedure (a response/rejoinder under Section 70). This demonstrates active participation and close attention to procedural details.

The first speech represents strong opposition to the government’s economic policy, criticizing the taxation of banks and the direction of government priorities, as well as offering critical assessments of the economic strategy. A direct oppositional stance is not presented in the second speech; consequently, the overall oppositional tone primarily stems from the first speech.

Not enough data

There are no regional references at the Riigikogu level; the focus is strictly national. Neither regional concentration nor local project-specific aspects are highlighted.

A critical attitude toward the government's direction in economic policy: it is emphasized that the advance income tax for banks stands at 18%, while personal income tax is set to rise to 24%, pointing to an unequal burden. Skepticism regarding the government's "money thrown to the wind" economic strategy, coupled with suspicion of favoritism toward specific government sectors, favorably influences his/her views and the policy directed toward corporate interests.

Not enough data

The legislative focus centers on the first reading of draft bill 535 OE in the Riigikogu concerning the establishment of a temporary solidarity tax for banks. Furthermore, attention has been directed toward addressing the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and the procedure for the right of reply (Section 70), along with clarifying procedural questions. This duality results in two distinct procedural tones: one characterized by broader political debate and the other by detailed procedural discussion.