Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The primary position is oppositional and fiscally focused: the decision not to raise alcohol excise tax for 2025 alone is highlighted, along with general criticism of increasing taxes, given that revenue collection has been optimistically low in previous months. It emphasizes that tax policy must be based on realistic forecasts and that increasing taxes can reduce total revenue and damage purchasing power. The framing is politically driven and focuses on sustainability and financial stability, not an ideological manifesto of tax certainty. It draws attention to the fact that past tax increases may not yield the desired revenue, which means the discussion about excise taxes needs to be approached with a different consideration.

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of tax policy and revenue assessment, mentioning specific figures and processes (e.g., a difference of 43 million euros in September) and discussing potential impacts of tax increases. They refer to calculations, revenue trends, and limitations, and use terminology such as revenue, forecasts, and extraordinary increases. The focus is on budget and tax policy and the role of the finance ministry/commission.

The emphasis is on an analytical and questioning tone; it uses question forms and references to previous discussions to scrutinize the government's justifications. It works with data and examples and is critical, but not emotionally fiery or aggressive. The text is formal, yet presents more complex thoughts clearly and in a comprehensible manner.

Two speeches on the same date (December 4, 2024) at a plenary session; focusing on the same thematic area: taxes and excises, receipts, and tax benefits. Reference is made to the preceding agenda item, demonstrating a clear continuity in tax policy matters.

Opposes the government's tax policy, particularly its intentions to raise alcohol excise duties and broader taxes. The critical tone concerns primarily the projections regarding revenue and impact on purchasing power; criticizes the rationale behind the decisions and emphasizes the need to consider the realism of the projections. He insists that tax policy must keep the burden under control and should not increase the tax burden without clear evidence.

There is no explicitly stated intention of cooperation or bipartisanship; it refers to the commission and previous agenda items and poses questions, indicating participation in the discussion, but there is no clear mention of coalition cooperation or the involvement of opposing viewpoints.

There is insufficient data regarding regionalized focal points; cross-border trade is mentioned as the contextual effectiveness of a tax and regional approach, but a specific region is not named. There is no regional focus. There is insufficient data.

The economic standpoint emphasizes the potential harmful effect of tax increases on revenue collection and consumer purchasing power; it opposes raising alcohol excise duties in 2025 and criticizes forecasts indicating a larger tax burden leading to a decrease in revenue. At the same time, it notes that taxation may be "enhanced" in certain cases, but the overall tone is cautious and the cheapest option is to keep tax burden under control. It suggests discussing whether emergency tax increases are necessary.

There is not enough data regarding social issues (e.g., abortion, LGBT+, immigration, education, social justice).

The legislator's focus is on taxes and excise duties and their influence; the central question is the decision to raise excise duties and its further discussion or withdrawal at the committee level; reference is made to the preceding agenda item and discussions, indicating that the set objective is a review of tax policy and, if necessary, its adjustment according to the accuracy of forecasts.