By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Specific economic policy proposals are absent; criticism has been raised regarding the significant impact of accelerated tax bills and amendments. It emphasizes the necessity of conducting impact assessments and substantive preliminary discussions before implementing the state budget and tax commitments. It does not represent a concrete economic policy program, but it is critical of the legitimacy of economic decisions made in haste.

The economic position focuses on the adequacy of funding for teachers' salaries and affirms that the base funding must come from the state, while acknowledging the role of supplementary bonuses provided by local governments. It is critical regarding the reallocation and targeted use of state funds, and emphasizes accountability and control over how the money is spent; it advocates for a clear employee remuneration policy and warnings against the misuse of funding.

Economic development must stem from investments in education and science. It emphasizes a balanced role for both the public and private sectors and calls for robust tax incentives for corporate research and development activities. A clear objective is established: 3% of GDP dedicated to R&D investment, with 2% sourced from the private sector and 1% from the state. Furthermore, the preference is that these funds are not diverted to other sectors but are added directly to education and science. This approach requires greater private sector participation and a competitive salary structure within higher education and research institutions.

The economic vision focuses on tax changes as a means of reforming the tax system; they are seeking the optimal income tax rate and coalition support, which suggests a reformist and growth-promoting direction, but specific figures are not provided.

Supports state funding for the education salary pool; emphasizes that the money must come from the national budget, and local government budgets should not be the primary source for covering teachers’ salaries; is critical of the funding mechanism proposed by its coalition partners.

No clear economic standpoints were presented (taxes, spending, regulation, employment). Not enough data.

The situation is economically critical concerning the execution of major projects; it emphasizes that the question of project implementation capacity and budget strain immediately arises. He/She stresses the need to discuss economically critical risks and offers no positive endorsement for rapid and costly major projects.

Insufficient data.

No economic policy indicators or macroeconomic positions were presented; the link to ESM mechanisms is a subject of discussion, but specific economic policy standpoints are not being put forward.

In economic terms, the priority is boosting growth potential through investments; tax hikes are viewed as detrimental tools that stifle economic activity. The decline in purchasing power and the growing number of jobs are critically important key metrics. It is stressed that the budget requires specific expenditure lines and dedicated investment lines. Critique of Redistribution: Redistribution policies do not increase the wealth of local municipalities.

The economic critique regarding tax hikes is excessive, coupled with an emphasis on central funding for education and investments designed to utilize European funds. The entity is skeptical of the argument that local municipalities should take on additional resources, preferring instead systemic, state-level responsibility and resources. The text stresses the necessary balance between the effects of taxation and the development of infrastructure and human capital.