Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

He/She is strongly opposed to the current government's tax policy, emphasizing that sharply raising taxes will damage the economy and disrupt family finances and lifestyles. He/She praises a controversial comparison—one where the taxes are likened to Putin's taxes—arguing that this comparison is justified by the state's poor communication. The text embodies firm political and economic criticism and raises questions regarding the accountability of the Ministry of Finance leadership. There is no initial presentation of a clear alternative solution; the focus remains primarily on identifying tax policy as the problem itself.

Demonstrates knowledge of tax and social policy, mentioning specific tax categories (Value Added Tax, income tax, fuel and electricity excise duty, doctor’s visit fee) and the cap on child benefits. Reference is made to economic rationale (economic activity) and demographic issues (natural increase). Technical terminology is used, highlighting the connections between fiscal and social policy, although quantitative data is not presented. The arguments rely on political and economic logic rather than data-driven statistics.

The tone is combative and emotional, utilizing rhetorical questions and strong figurative expressions, such as “Putin’s taxes.” The text is explicit, critical, and, for the time being, free of insults; it is formally correct, yet deliberately avoids sounding mild. The presentation combines the consideration of facts with an emotional, menacing undertone, focusing on generating perception and leveling accusations.

He refers to the Riigikogu Question Times, specifically noting that the Minister of Finance failed to appear for one, and subsequently directs questions to the ministers. He mentions yesterday's parliamentary debate and frames his inquiries as questions in order to receive responses. He acknowledges his regular participation in these sessions and highlights the nature of the interaction with the ministers.

Highly critical of the current government's tax policy, focusing on tax hikes as the root cause of the problems. It slams the measures adopted by the minister and the government, stressing that these actions are damaging the economy and disrupting family finances and household arrangements. The intensity is high; no clear strategy for cooperation or compromise is offered in this passage.

Insufficient data.

The focus is at the Estonian national level, but it utilizes a regional comparison with Latvia and Lithuania and links the Estonian tax system to competitiveness within the Baltics. The text stresses that Latvia and Lithuania are not raising taxes, and Estonia should follow a similar path, which underscores the regional comparison.

In terms of economic outlook, there is opposition to sharp tax hikes; it is argued that taxes negatively affect economic activity and the financial coping ability of families. It is pointed out that neighboring countries are not increasing taxes, which creates competition detrimental to Estonia. The importance of a stable economic environment and the competitiveness of businesses is emphasized. Criticism is leveled at the contradictions between communication and policy, which only deepen uncertainty.

The text emphasizes family well-being and the strain associated with maintaining the birth rate, detailing the insecurity faced by families and the impact of reducing child support payments. It explains that tax policy affects the financial security of households and highlights the social consequences that accompany tax reductions or the scaling back of support for families.

We do not have sufficient data to specify a concrete priority regarding a draft law or a hearing topic. The text focuses on criticizing tax policy and general discussion, but fails to present clear legislative initiatives or goals.