Agenda Profile: Arvo Aller
Second reading of the Motor Vehicle Tax Bill (364 SE)
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position is strongly and fundamentally opposed to the motor vehicle tax, labeling it a property tax that will worsen the situation of rural residents. Emphasis is placed on the government's failure to uphold its pre-election promises regarding tax increases, and all members of parliament are urged to vote against the draft law. The political framework is value-based (anti-taxation) and results-based (government untrustworthiness).
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates detailed knowledge of the draft bill's technical and procedural aspects, raising questions regarding the rules for tax refunds (Section 10) and potential double taxation. They are also aware of the errors in the explanatory memorandum (inaccuracies in page numbers and references) and the method by which amendments are processed. Furthermore, they connect the car tax to other tax hikes (the sugar tax, VAT, and income tax), thereby exhibiting a broader understanding of economic policy.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, accusing the ruling party of "long-term deceit" and seizing the people's assets. Both logical arguments (procedural errors, the threat of double taxation) and emotional appeals (the dire situation in rural areas) are employed. The speech concludes with a direct political appeal to vote against the current government in the European Parliament elections.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during the bill's second reading, raising both procedural questions and substantive objections. He refers to 11 amendments he submitted that were rejected. Furthermore, he actively participates in the debate, commenting on the shortcomings of the public engagement events.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed at the government coalition, particularly the Reform Party, which is being accused of breaking pre-election promises and attempting to solve the country’s problems through inadequate taxation. The criticism is both substantive (the tax is useless) and procedural (lack of inclusion and unfair handling of amendments). Compromise has been ruled out, with calls for the bill to be rejected.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is critical, especially concerning the Finance Committee, because it combined the amendments from various factions into a single package. The speaker sees this as an obstacle to making the draft bill more humane and to substantive voting. He emphasizes that representatives of large families and farmers were excluded from the engagement event, despite their appeals.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A strong regional focus is placed on rural areas and regions located further away from Tallinn, where a car is often the only means of transport. It is stressed that the car tax will specifically worsen the situation for residents in these areas and significantly increase the costs associated with commuting to work.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly opposed to tax increases, seeing the car tax as an unfair wealth tax. Criticism is leveled at the widespread raising of the tax burden (VAT, income tax, excise duties, the sugar tax), which reduces people's purchasing power and creates financial difficulties.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Regarding social issues, emphasis is placed on the exclusion of representatives of large families and farmers from the car tax discussions. Furthermore, he/she links the car tax to the issue of e-elections, claiming that this system has led the country to its current state, and demands a return to fair elections.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative priority is the opposition and rejection of the draft Motor Vehicle Tax Act (Bill 364 SE). A secondary focus is on the integrity of the legislative procedure, demanding the correction of errors in the explanatory memorandum and the fair, non-obstructive handling of proposed amendments.
5 Speeches Analyzed