Agenda Profile: Lauri Laats

As a representative of the Centre Party faction, his primary stance is opposition to the third reading of the 2025 state budget. He highlights the detrimental impact of tax increases, including the potential effect of the bank tax, on people's livelihoods and entrepreneurs. He characterizes the budget as harmful and stresses the necessity of abolishing the tax hump. He calls for an extraordinary process of cooperation and negotiation within the Finance Committee, and emphasizes that the opposition should refrain from traditional blocking tactics and seek opportunities for collaboration. His position is strongly value-based, prioritizing the lives of the people and the welfare of the business sector.

He demonstrates a background in finance and macroeconomics, referencing Euribor, the base interest rate, and return on equity (e.g., 20% return on equity, twice as high as in Scandinavia). Furthermore, he refers to assessments made by bank analysts (Raul Eamets, LHV, Luminor, Bigbank) and articles published in Postimees to highlight the effects of tax and fiscal measures. This indicates knowledge of macro research, financial indicators, and the effective use of media sources to support his argument.

The emphasis is constructively critical and fact-based, combining questions and references to the media. It uses direct questions concerning people's lives and the economy, and highlights the viewpoints of various experts and articles to stimulate a response. The style of communication is formal, analytical, and measured, yet simultaneously clearly opposed to the government's plans.

He actively participates in the discussions related to the same session: submitting a series of questions, citing journalistic sources and experts; and proposing the formation of an extraordinary commission and the organization of negotiations with the local representative of the finance committee. His conduct demonstrates active, initiative-taking opposition toward the presiding officer, coupled with a readiness for cooperation.

The main adversaries are the budget drafters, as well as the tax and banking policies, which he considers detrimental to the state, society, and businesses. He stresses that raising taxes and implementing new ones are unpopular among employers and the general public. He presents strong opposition and does not view the current budget as a viable solution. The opposition’s tone is forceful, but they show readiness for constructive cooperation and resolving issues related to parliamentary procedure.

The focus is on communication and collaboration with colleagues: recommending the inclusion of Aivar Kokk and Andrei Korobeinik in a wide-ranging discussion and requesting an extraordinary meeting of the committee. It stresses that involving members of the Finance Committee would help to better understand and prepare responses, and demonstrates a readiness for bipartisan and multilateral solutions.

At the national level, the focus remains centered on discussion, lacking any specifically highlighted regional focus. The primary attention is directed toward the overall impact on the budget and the state economy.

The central criticism within economic policy is directed at tax policy: tax increases and the issues surrounding the bank tax conflict with people's ability to cope financially and the position held by entrepreneurs. He/She advocates for the abolition of the tax hump and emphasizes that the future budget outlook could degrade people's standard of living. He/She references Euribor and the differences in base interest rates, using these points as an argument to avoid increasing taxes and ensure the sustainability of economic growth and employment.

The message centers on people's ability to cope and their standard of living; it is emphasized that fiscal misalignment could impoverish people, necessitating the protection of residents' incomes. He uses the terms "people's livelihood" and "moving towards a better life" as metrics for moral and social well-being. Specific stances on social policy are not thoroughly detailed, but the welfare and equality of the population are prioritized.

The legislative focus is on the reading of the budget and assessing its impacts, along with close attention to tax policy. He/She stresses the necessity of forming an ad hoc committee and expediting negotiations via the Finance Committee, and indicates that the proposed amendments to the bill and their consequences require a more thorough review.