By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The focus is on people's financial coping, with the discussion centering on taxes, the car tax, and the financing of the social sector. Criticism has been voiced regarding the increasing burden and the impact of cuts, but a clear sense of economic policy direction is missing. It also shows skepticism toward contradictory tax policies and the responses provided by the Ministry of Finance.

Specific macroeconomic positions were not presented; instead, budget transparency and parliamentary oversight are emphasized as the framework for fiscal policy. Support was given to the idea that budgetary changes should not be made by a single minister without the involvement of the Riigikogu (Parliament), which signals a desire for fiscal discipline and transparency.

On the economic level, the focus is on countering the effect that reduces tax revenue, and the desire is for policies that stimulate the economy and encourage consumption and investment. It is mentioned that the bank tax limits lending activity, and that the timing of high taxes is detrimental to economic growth.

The economic approach focuses on the responsiveness to tax changes and budgetary proportionality. There is a clear opposition to tax hikes (VAT, income tax, car tax, excise duties), emphasizing that these impact families' purchasing power. They advocate for the clear and proportional use of funding, prioritizing the protection of social needs.

Supports increasing financial transparency and is critical of tax hikes that could impact the poorest citizens; emphasizes that income and expenditure lines must be visible, and that current tax policy changes may increase inflation and reduce purchasing power, meaning they must be carefully considered; believes that the public needs to see the real picture when state expenditures are being allocated.

In terms of economic outlook, there is opposition to sharp tax hikes; it is argued that taxes negatively affect economic activity and the financial coping ability of families. It is pointed out that neighboring countries are not increasing taxes, which creates competition detrimental to Estonia. The importance of a stable economic environment and the competitiveness of businesses is emphasized. Criticism is leveled at the contradictions between communication and policy, which only deepen uncertainty.

When expressing economic views, the position opposes tax increases (the extensive raising of all taxes) and highlights their impact on household budgets and the economy. A cautionary tone is employed regarding potential income decline and the rising burden on car owners. The text emphasizes the need for thorough analysis and responsible fiscal policy, but offers no concrete alternatives.

The economic perspective is crucial when examining the rising costs of healthcare and the resulting impact of these expenditures, not just on the economy, but specifically on vulnerable societal groups. It argues against raising treatment costs and fees (such as specialist visit charges, daily hospital fees, and increasing medicine prices), stressing that such increases exacerbate inequality and could undermine the nation's economic stability. Fiscal responsibility and budgetary constraints are highlighted as the primary reasons why the introduction of further additional costs must be resisted.

An economically critical assessment: It emphasizes taxpayer losses (losses exceeding 20 million euros) and the necessity of evaluating the national airline's sustainability. It highlights that the decision-making process concerning the role of the national carrier must be transparent, and potentially focus on airport infrastructure and potential alternatives. It does not emphasize investment in or widespread support for the national airline's structure.

The text emphasizes clear revenue distribution and funding transparency: it demands that revenue collected from excise duties and the car tax be channeled directly into road infrastructure, noting that the allocation of these funds is currently under critical scrutiny. It expresses concern over the ambiguity and lack of clarity regarding the use of the money, and stresses the vital need for funding continuity and rigorous control.