By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

Economic perspectives focus on preventing negative indirect harm and require a thorough economic impact assessment on border residents and businesses. There is a warning that the state must not be heavy-handed if it is unaware of the economic consequences of its decision.

There is no information on economic positions.

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).

Economic perspectives focus on the negative impact of price hikes on the social sector and criticize the system that allows service providers to generate significant profits at the expense of public services. The necessity of protecting the taxpayer's purse is stressed, and greater state funding is demanded to mitigate the rising costs faced by local governments.

There is too little data.

Economic views strongly support social redistribution and increased government spending aimed at supporting vulnerable groups. Calls are being made to find budgetary resources to raise the subsistence minimum, stressing that the current level doesn't even cover the cost of essential goods. Support is also given to a symbolically significant pension supplement designed to alleviate the effects of rising prices.