By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Economically, the stance on the car tax is critical and controversial; it is stressed that the draft legislation will introduce additional costs and potential risks. Funding proposals are being put forward (a tax on banks' excess profits, abandoning the promise to eliminate the tax hump), and the necessity of ensuring the availability of social support measures to protect vulnerable groups is highlighted.

Criticism is leveled against the sugar tax and broader fiscal policy, emphasizing that taxation does not solve health problems. Instead, the focus must be on creating an economic environment that ensures greater tax revenue through improved economic activity. The speaker stresses the establishment of a foundation for healthcare based on a sustainable financing model (a continuous and favorable economic environment). There is also criticism regarding the crude reliance on budget and tax structures (referred to as the "Excel spreadsheet"), which appears to deepen existing fiscal monitoring problems. This demonstrates the need for alignment and balance between economic growth and healthcare funding.

We are not submitting separate proposals for taxes or tax hikes; the emphasis is on the economic benefit achieved through reducing the administrative burden. A unified register consumes fewer resources by eliminating duplicate registry creation and bureaucracy.

The protection of the economic environment is the primary concern: he is critical of the draft administrative and punitive measures, seeing that they could diminish the business environment and the economy. At the same time, he emphasizes the need to support businesses during the crisis and refers to expert recommendations for economic stimulation, which contradicts harsh penalties and restrictions. Exemptions from the car tax for disabled people are viewed as a social expenditure, but the overall direction remains balanced and supportive of economic growth.

The economic narrative focuses on social protection and tax benefits that are financially distributed equally. It opposes the car tax, proposing instead to replace it with an excess profits tax targeting banks. It emphasizes that tax reforms should channel subsidies (for large families, single parents, school meals) and establish better mechanisms rather than relying on a wealth tax. Furthermore, in the context of tax funding and economic uncertainty, it highlights the need to prioritize family and child benefits, along with the purchasing power and housing options for young people.

Economically, the criticism of taxes is represented by opposition to the car tax. Due to its broad impact, critics are demanding changes and proposing a windfall (or excess profits) tax as an alternative. The debate regarding state investments in infrastructure (specifically road construction) is being lost. Instead, emphasis is placed on the overall effect of the tax changes and the risk that people may be forced to pay significantly more if needed (for example, increasing the cost of car ownership by up to 15%). Critics argue that this disproportionately burdens vulnerable groups, and they are calling for a comprehensive review of the tax and financing system to ensure financial fairness and clear purpose.

Within the economic context, the stance on the car tax is critical: it is burdensome, diminishing both purchasing power and economic growth. The cumulative effect of various taxes (VAT, excise, and the car tax) must be assessed, as it disproportionately impacts lower-income groups. Taxing the excess profits of banks is favored as an alternative in the fiscal sphere, alongside a desire for infrastructure investments. However, an official impact analysis is demanded before proceeding with any significantly broader measures.