Session Profile: Vladimir Arhipov
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
2025-11-05
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the car tax, demanding its complete abolition, not merely adjustment. This stance is driven both by economic failure (revenue collection is lower than planned) and by a value-based framework that views the tax as a punishment for working, maintaining a family life, and residing in rural areas. The political focus is centered on criticizing the government's budgetary policy and the lack of trust.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the fields of taxation and budget execution, referencing specific data, such as the decrease in excise revenue and the fact that tax revenue collection remained two times below expectations. Furthermore, they are familiar with the details of the draft bill concerning the shortening of the taxation period and the provision of exceptions (e.g., 18-year-olds, high school students, university students). The expertise focuses on analyzing the tax's negative economic impact (car sales, VAT).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speech is combative and urgent in tone, employing strong metaphors (such as "a plaster on a wound" or "the foundation is rotten") and emotional appeals (for instance, claiming it "punishes working"). The style is formal, yet it includes sharp criticism, going so far as to label the taxes "predatory taxes." It utilizes both logical economic arguments (the failure of revenue collection) and value-based calls to action (standing up for the people and regional policy).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
All three speeches were delivered on the same day during the plenary session and focused on a single topic: the draft motor vehicle tax bill. This pattern of activity indicates active participation in the legislative debate, presenting both general criticism and specific questions regarding exemptions.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main criticism is aimed at the government, which is accused of "blowing the budget" and imposing an unnecessary tax. The criticism is policy-based (the tax fails to meet its objective) and procedural (the government is unable to show trust in its own people). A compromise (adjusting the tax) is categorically rejected, with demands for a full repeal.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker is taking an opposing stance on this issue, rejecting the government's attempt to amend the draft bill. Cooperation is not being sought; instead, emphasis is placed on a clear choice between the people and the tax. Colleagues are addressed with a call to support the complete repeal of the tax.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus is strong, emphasizing that the car tax specifically penalizes "a family living in the countryside" and sends a negative message about "staying in forest-edge Estonia." The impact of this taxation on regional policy is highlighted as a crucial argument.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker is strongly opposed to tax hikes, especially when they are inefficient and punitive. The preference is for stimulating economic growth (for example, abolishing the car tax to boost car sales and VAT revenue) and prioritizing investment over punitive measures. This indirectly supports business interests (car dealers).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The social focus is directed towards supporting families and low-income individuals who are disproportionately affected by the car tax (as they lack the funds to purchase a new vehicle). The need to support non-working students and pupils (such as high schoolers and university students) with tax incentives is also highlighted.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative priority is the complete termination and cancellation of the motor vehicle tax project. The speaker is an active opponent of the draft bill that seeks to merely adjust the tax, demanding a radical change (abolition) rather than just fixing the details.
3 Speeches Analyzed