By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

A critical stance fighting against the car tax. It argues that triple taxation (the VAT hike, excise duty, and the car tax) significantly burdens vehicle owners and calls for considering an alternative, such as a one-time additional bank levy. The position is strongly policy-driven and emphasizes the necessity of reviewing the tax structures, rather than supporting the current proposal.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to the government's car tax plan. He highlights the impact of the three-part taxation—VAT, excise duties, and a separate car tax—and emphasizes that these measures increase the obligations of car owners. He insists that the money collected shouldn't just be about fee collection, but about investments, and that mobility in rural areas should be improving, not deteriorating. This is policy-driven criticism, focusing on the impacts of tax policy and infrastructure funding, and there is no significant deviation from earlier statements.

The main positions are increasing funding for higher education institutions and preserving Estonian-language higher education. The EKRE draft bill is viewed as too radical, and he considers the implementation of quotas for English-language curricula impractical. He emphasizes that the state should develop a financial model and guarantee at least 1.5% of GDP for higher education funding, and that these investments must yield returns for the economy and the labor market, ensuring students remain in Estonia to work. He also argues that the underfunding of higher education threatens democracy and security, and that linguistic development relies on funding for higher education institutions and maintaining instruction in Estonian.

The critical opposition regarding the PM’s road policy stresses that the road maintenance plan reduces investments and that the proposed car tax plan lacks clear justification, potentially signaling further investment cuts. Their stance evolves based on specific debates: the underlying goal is to either increase or maintain road funding and to mitigate the car tax's impact on the national economy. The opposition utilizes interpellations to compel clarification and scrutinize the planned directions; this approach demonstrates a strong, fundamentally ontological focus on control.

An opposition figure and a sharp critic of tax policy; they emphasize that the abolition of the VAT exemption for accommodation establishments must be based on thorough impact analyses and consideration of regional effects, rather than merely plugging a narrow budget deficit. They support ensuring tax equity and regional stability, calling for a more comprehensive review of decisions and the implementation of necessary mitigation measures. They are strongly opposed to the current government's tax amendments and demand their reversal or a fundamental re-evaluation.