By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The criticism centers on economic policy: the budget is incomprehensible and lacks transparency; there are calls for clarity and readability. Tax hikes (specialist doctor fees, VAT, income tax, and excises) are cited as examples that have already taken effect, but whose necessity and impact require precise explanations. There is a shared conviction that the budget must be understandable to the public and should not support hidden or hard-to-track expenditure movements.

He opposes tax hikes and wants taxes not to rise by 2028; he points out issues regarding the increase in service fees charged by state-owned companies and the overall tax structure. He acknowledges the need to understand regional wage disparities and improve access to services.

The economic perspective focuses on criticizing the large share of consumption taxes (which make up 41% of the state budget) and the objective of implementing a bank tax, which would lessen the burden on individuals and increase social solidarity. He emphasizes the necessity of regulation and the impact of Euribor on loan repayments, stressing that banks should show solidarity during economic conditions and that the distribution of burdens ought to be fairer. At the same time, he points out that domestic consumption and the business environment could suffer if taxes are raised, and therefore advocates for balanced tax financing.

In terms of tax policy, there is skepticism regarding the increase of consumption taxes, with the emphasis being placed on the fact that such taxes can reduce overall consumption and disproportionately affect lower-income groups. The recommendations include utilizing alternative revenue sources (such as a bank tax or the taxation of digital platforms), as well as stressing the importance of investments, support for entrepreneurs, and strengthening the economic environment. The preference is for funding mechanisms that do not directly burden workers and consumers, highlighting the option of employing other tax allowances and cost reduction mechanisms.

In economic policy, there is criticism regarding the increase of the consumption tax and a preference for a bank tax as a financing mechanism for the defense and security sectors. Emphasis is placed on the tax burden's effect on consumption and lower-income residents, alongside the need to manage the budget more transparently and in a more balanced way. It is argued that the rise in VAT and changes to income tax will increase the state budget, but the actual impact on the economy and people's livelihoods is viewed critically.

Criticism regarding the expansion of taxation and the coalition’s plans that impact people's livelihoods; opposition to the bank tax and the partially progressive income tax. The recommendations focus on saving budgetary resources, reducing deficits, and setting certain limits on tax policy, emphasizing the need for financially realistic solutions.

The economic viewpoint is that tax policy should generate revenue, but the way this burden is structured primarily affects people's pockets. They argue that the revenue should be directed toward roads and infrastructure, not merely used to restrict targeted consumption. Critics argue that the increased revenue is not accompanied by transparent or targeted distribution, and they emphasize the need to manage resources more effectively.

Critical regarding the economy and skeptical of financial and funding policies; emphasizes that rushing will lead to negative impacts on the state budget and demands an impact analysis. It opposes tax increases or service price hikes and stands against plans that increase people's costs (e.g., consultation fees and inpatient daily fees). Recommendations lean toward achieving state budget balance and transparent discussion, and support family and demographic policy measures, but not in the form proposed by the draft bill.

Emphasis is placed on ensuring the competitiveness and economic sustainability of food producers, as well as the necessity of a national vision for the sake of economic stability. Concern is expressed regarding the tax increase in 2025–2026, and the state's crucial role in guaranteeing sustainable investments and the long-term viability of food production is highlighted; the inequality of subsidy distribution at the European level is also addressed.

The economic position is critical regarding capital allocation and reinvestment: concerns are raised over the excessive retention of profits and a decline in the volume of investment. Transparency in the use of capital is supported, along with a call for review, but no specific recommendations regarding macro-subsidies or fiscal policy are offered.