By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

There are no references to economic topics (taxes, spending, wealth, etc.).

Economically, emphasis has been placed on the detrimental nature of the tax policy and its impact on families and the overall cost of living. The first speech highlighted concerns regarding grocery prices and tax increases, demanding clarification and potential postponement. The second speech centered its criticism on the car tax, specifically addressing the burden placed on people with special needs and large families, and is tied to ongoing discussions about scrapping the proposed tax schemes. The overall objective is to limit taxation and protect vulnerable groups.

Criticism regarding the use of large subsidy allocations, particularly for newly established companies and for applications exceeding the 13 million limit; emphasis is placed on transparency, protecting fairness, and the proper distribution of state funds. This demonstrates a desire to avoid corruption and monopolies, but fails to offer specific alternative economic policy solutions.

Criticism of the multi-package tax structures: the increase in VAT and fuel excise duty, the rise in registration fees and fines, and the gradual impact of the car tax on the cost of living. In contrast, pre-tax savings measures are presented, alongside the argument that road construction investments are decreasing. There is a demand for the review and abolition of the car tax, and the use of compensation mechanisms for specific listed groups. The primary objective is to reduce the financial burden and ensure a level playing field for society's most vulnerable groups.

Economic policy positions are not directly emphasized; rather, the focus is placed on public sector transparency and the supervision of contracts as a component of economic activity. The economic policy discourse remains primarily in the background in this speech, serving the discussion of mutual control and accountability.

The guiding principles of the economy focus on the economic, yet cautious, utilization of natural resources; emphasizing that resources must be used reasonably and transparently for the benefit of the economy. He/She is critical of changes to state aid and competition requirements, and stresses the need to avoid excessive regulation that could stifle business operations. He/She emphasizes that severe punitive measures should be avoided, and that legality and established processes must be followed.

The economic focus is reflected in the protection of the state budget and taxpayer funds; criticism regarding state intervention or the granting of loans (the Nordica bailout) and unfair/expected contracts that caused losses to the taxpayer. It points out that the loan and consulting agreements were concentrated in unstable ventures, and emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability concerning state financing, rather than focusing on expansion or additional costs. There is a clearly negative attitude towards the government’s intentions to use public money for bailouts if such actions are not transparently and legally controlled.