By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The critical and evaluative topic of discussion concerns the funding and economic background: it emphasizes that the “3.5 million euros” in European Union funds must not justify the violation of fundamental human rights; it criticizes the fact that the economic pretext (money originating from the EU) does not justify the implementation of widely interconnected data collection systems. Skepticism is expressed regarding the correlation between large-scale expenditure and security measures.

Economic issues primarily come to the fore in the context of taxation and legality. Regarding the car tax, emphasis is placed on its unconstitutionality and the opposition it faces, while economic measures themselves are not widely explored; the need to adhere to the constitution and the assessments provided by the Chancellor of Justice in the field of taxation is stressed.

Reportedly, cost issues related to the bill's funding and taxpayer money are raised, and the question is asked how much money will be spent on the entire upkeep; a specific economic policy stance is not expressed, but budgetary impacts and transparency are addressed.

The central focus of the discussion is the concern regarding the adequacy of the tax increases and their subsequent effects. Criticism is directed at the permanent rise in VAT and income tax, which impacts middle and lower-income families, and the government is accused of misleading the public. The speaker emphasizes inflation and rising prices, arguing that the tax calculator and the changes provide only modest financial gains—a small benefit that affects everyone—which are negligible compared to the large overall benefit (or burden). The overall tone is critical and fundamentally dismissive, stressing the magnitude of the burden placed on consumers.

To stimulate the economy, the need to increase infrastructure funding is recognized. It is emphasized that broader investments are necessary to improve safety and accessibility, and that delayed or limited funding will result in higher future costs. The position is growth-based and focused on financing.

There is not enough data regarding the economy, taxes, or regulations.

A focus on consolidating family benefits and social measures: It advocates for free kindergartens as an investment in family well-being and promoting the birth rate. It opposes the introduction or retention of a car tax or other unnecessary taxes, and wants the state to intervene in the housing market to increase the availability of suitable housing for young people. Overall, it favors moderate but targeted public spending aimed at improving the living standards of families and young people.

There is ongoing criticism concerning the Climate Ministry's stance, which raises the specter of restricting entrepreneurial freedom. It is stressed that the draft legislation does not ban business outright but rather seeks to strike a balance between public health and enterprise. It is recognized that the regulation could reduce visual pollution in the urban landscape and foster better conditions, although attention is also paid to how companies' marketing activities (e.g., Bolt) influence the network and the market.

The position is oppositional regarding tax reduction and the maintenance of a fairer distribution of the tax burden. It highlights the cliff effect for low-income individuals and the necessity of regulating tax distribution; it opposes the permanent continuation of major tax changes, specifically criticizing the breaking of promises and promoting the restoration of public trust.

Economically, the focus is on financial stability and the effect of fees, as well as the negative consequences of ending targeted financing and demanding dividends. This requires a review of the dividend policy and the airport's financial structure to ensure proper market functioning.

Not enough data