By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The focus on economic pressure highlights that increased fines and state fees are a "new source of income" for filling the budget, and this approach contradicts the idea of not burdening citizens. The position is critical of the coalition's economic policy: taxation and fine increases implemented for the sake of the budget must not push people into poverty, and the impact on people's livelihoods and the accessibility of goods and services must be assessed.

The economic policy perspective is critical of the revenues and expenditures related to the car tax. The primary criticism concerns the utility of the taxation and the risk of diminished purchasing power. There is a desire to use the revenues for road construction or innovation, while simultaneously demanding exceptions (for long-term households and people with disabilities) and a review of the tax's quality. It is emphasized that taxes must not exacerbate poverty.

Not enough data

The overall economic situation is critical: Opposing funding cuts to school and recreational sports, and opposing redistribution. Supports maintaining funding and emphasizes that money must be clearly allocated, not lost or causing confusion.

It emphasizes that the bill’s rationale is budget implementation and a fiscal objective; it criticizes that the impact is non-existent or has been insufficiently addressed recently; it demands an impact assessment that would evaluate the effect on the economy and public safety.

A clearly defined economic policy position: supporting entrepreneurship during the crisis, opposing excessive fines and the expansion of administrative procedures that could harm businesses. The position supports the use of existing legal mechanisms (misdemeanor proceedings) and raises concerns about the burden placed on companies. It criticizes the government's trend of increasing punitive measures.

Opposes the car tax and other tax hikes that disproportionately burden low-income earners. It emphasizes that eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy could increase budget revenue and reduce inequality (referencing the specific call to abolish tax concessions for the rich). Furthermore, it highlights that reforms may either benefit or harm various groups—such as teachers and pensioners—and the central focus remains on fiscal impact and fairness.

Economically, emphasis is placed on a stable and predictable business environment; [the subject] is critical of rapid or excessive tax changes and stringent regulations, as these could drive investments outside of Estonia. He/She stresses the need for impact assessments and transparent regulation to prevent investment losses.

In the economic context, there is a critical view of tax increases (car tax, sugar tax) and the growing strain they place on family budgets. It is stressed that existing support measures do not compensate for all costs, and budgets must be managed carefully and responsibly. The necessity for differentiation and additional support measures is highlighted, rather than burdening the population through the introduction of new taxes.

It supports increasing teachers' salaries and criticizes the postponement of even minor steps (such as the 17-euro increase). It stresses the importance of reaching the promised level (120% of the Estonian average) and accounting for regional salary differences. Furthermore, it demonstrates a critical attitude towards the government’s inefficient spending, highlighting the relationship between economic efficiency and social costs within the education sector.

Focuses on tax economics and state budget financing mechanisms; criticism of the income tax emphasizes that it does not work without supplementary measures; advocates for additional taxes (bank tax, digital tax) and taxes related to large profits of companies and cash flow; supports lower VAT on fruits and vegetables, emphasizing targeted funding and a bold state farm.

Critical of the car tax, the speaker argues that it increases the overall tax burden (including through VAT and excise duties) and clearly fails to effectively generate jobs or economic growth. At the same time, the speaker emphasizes the necessity of maintaining or increasing aid, special provisions, and road investments, while criticizing economic policies that compel residents to leave rural areas.

Macroeconomically critical of the government's tax policy; opposes the expansion of sugar and car taxes, arguing this increases the burden on large families, and emphasizes the resulting decrease in purchasing power and the impact of the economic crisis. It recommends that, alongside addressing the budget shortfall, the state should increase revenue through a bank excess profits tax or a digital tax, while simultaneously curbing broad-based tax policies that harm the most vulnerable.