By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

Economic views focus on the need to guarantee financial security for families via stable support payments. The government is being criticized for cutting benefits, and real action is demanded to improve the economic standing of families. The car tax is opposed if it is merely a planned reduction of other burdens, rather than providing genuine support.

Strongly supports salary increases for public sector frontline workers (police officers, rescuers), viewing this as a dignified response to soaring inflation, which has driven prices up by 40%. Criticizes the government's budget priorities, noting that funds remained unused within the Ministry of the Interior while essential services were shut down under the guise of austerity. Demands that pay raises be directed to the frontline, not to the "big bosses."

Supports increasing social expenditure (family benefits, school meals) to resolve the demographic crisis, arguing that the necessary 30 million euros can be found within the state budget. It criticizes the high cost of abolishing the tax hump (half a billion euros) and deems this cynical, especially the support provided to high-income earners during an economically challenging period. It proposes introducing a bank tax and optimizing the operations and staffing of state institutions as alternative sources of funding.

Supports greater state intervention and spending in the social sector, especially regarding the compensation of wages and school meals, despite the economic recession and inflation. It criticizes the government's tax policy (the rise in income tax and VAT), arguing that it harms employees' incomes, and demands that the state budget funds found be directed toward raising wages.

Economic perspectives are leaning toward consumer protection, supporting regulations that reduce the financial burden on ordinary people and make refinancing more affordable. The goal is to reduce the restrictions imposed by lenders and promote financial freedom at the consumer level.

Supports targeted tax incentives (reducing the social tax contribution from 33% to 20% when hiring young people) to stimulate the economy and bring youth into the labor market. It is concerned about the state's financial discipline, citing the deficit of the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa) and the risk of bankruptcy. It also weighs the economic impact of an additional day off, highlighting both the negative aspects (loss of a working day) and the positive ones (increased productivity, domestic consumption).

Economic views are strongly opposed to taxes, especially the vehicle tax, because it has caused a drastic drop in the car sales market and forced auto repair shops to lay off staff. They prioritize market clarity and stability, criticizing the tax's negative impact on new car sales.

Economic perspectives stress the necessity of prioritizing Estonia's socio-economic impacts and consumer interests (a more favorable electricity price), while considering directing investments toward the development of domestic networks instead of foreign interconnections. There is opposition to decisions based purely on the needs of the European single market if they lead to higher electricity prices for Estonian consumers.

The speaker strongly advocates for state intervention aimed at increasing social spending. They also demand the implementation of a bank tax (citing the success seen in Lithuania and Latvia) to finance security, drawing on banks' excessive profits. Furthermore, the speaker opposes new consumption taxes (like the sugar tax) and proposes alternative funding sources, such as reducing the size of the state apparatus.