Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The position against the car tax is of central importance and is framed as legally and socially unjust. It is stressed that the tax particularly harms vulnerable groups and may potentially conflict with European Union law. A windfall profit tax on banks is proposed as an alternative. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the proposed amendments are substantive, with the goal being to slow down the bill's legislative process. The overall framing is strongly policy-driven and value-based, highlighting deficiencies in the impact assessment and stressing the need for fairness.

It soberly points to the extent of the tax implications, noting that the impact of the motor vehicle tax is so wide-ranging that even the Ministry of Finance could not manage to cover all sectors. It emphasizes the technical and infrastructural context of issues concerning car and motorsport, and highlights how the situation of athletes and hobbyists is changing against the backdrop of increased taxes. It uses references to the Explanatory Memorandum and information sessions, and presents financial and economic arguments regarding the burden placed on car owners.

An immediate and combative tone, using questions and critical assertions directed at the Prime Minister. It balances emotional appeal (justice, morality) with fact-based reasoning (cited data, Ministry of Finance assessments). The text itself would then be characterized as inquisitive in form and democratically assertive, with content that is strongly argued and focuses on highlighting problems and emphasizing opposition.

Three speeches delivered on the same day (March 6, 2024) focused on the car tax and its associated fiscal impacts. This activity takes place within the context of active information sessions and Q&A periods; referencing the procedure for handling questions during these sessions and underscoring continuous involvement in tax matters. It highlights that this remains an ongoing issue, representing a consistent presence in the public debate.

The main opponent of the current ruling coalition’s car tax argues that the criticism is political and immediately targets the policy itself. The critic accuses the policy behind the bill and asserts that it constitutes an injustice, unfairly burdening specific influential groups. The criticism also extends to the government's focus on security and infrastructure, pointing out that the tax revenue is associated with implementation difficulties and inadequate analysis. This constitutes an intense attack against political decisions and the current leadership. Potential compromises are mentioned in the article only in the form of alternative taxation methods (e.g., a windfall tax).

It demonstrates a willingness to cooperate on alternative solutions (the excess profit tax) and, in several instances, emphasizes shared visions that the government could incorporate. However, a critical approach is palpable, coupled with actions—via proposed amendments—intended to slow down the bill's processing. On at least one occasion, it is recorded that they are ready to cooperate in offering alternatives, thereby showing direct involvement and participation in the work of the parliament.

The analysis highlights regional impacts: the population of rural areas and their access to services, and previous arguments made in Tallinn (e.g., the effect of free public transport). It confirms that the impact of the car tax varies across regions and emphasizes the mobility and service access issues faced by people in rural areas. Therefore, the central focus is on regional specificities and proportional impacts.

Economically, the focus is on the criticism directed at the assessment of the tax plan's burden and impact: the car tax unfairly increases the financial burden and overall cost management for car owners; it is emphasized that VAT, excise, and other taxes have already increased. An alternative is proposed—an excess profit tax on banks—as a mechanism to maintain financial balance. The tone of these positions is receptively critical regarding all tax-related expenses, while simultaneously seeking economically compensatory solutions (distributional allocation).

The focus is on the social impacts, stressing that the proposed car tax will disproportionately affect low-income families, pensioners, large families, and residents of rural areas. Emphasis is placed on deficiencies in transportation and how the tax revenue will impact people's daily lives, highlighting the necessity of maintaining accessibility and supporting the development of infrastructure. Furthermore, the preservation of motorsports and related hobbies is also a social concern, given that the state's contribution to sports has been minimal, and new taxation could negatively impact those involved in these activities.

The main emphasis is placed on obstructing the processing of the bill and on the proposed amendments; mention is made of the Centre Party's more than 300 proposed amendments and the recommendation to discuss forthcoming changes. Alternative tax systems (such as the excess profit tax) and potential tax exemptions for vehicles used in sporting competitions are highlighted, along with discussions concerning the procedural issues of information sessions. A commitment is signaled regarding ongoing parliamentary work and the definition of sectoral priorities.