By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

Total Sessions: 5

Fully Profiled: 5

2024-07-29
15th Riigikogu, Riigikogu extraordinary session.
Insufficient data.
2024-07-29
The 15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu.
The economic platform is firmly opposed to tax hikes, instead favoring a drastic reduction in government spending coupled with a negative supplementary budget aimed at stimulating the economy. Warnings are issued regarding the negative impact of tax increases (specifically VAT, car tax, and the taxation of pensions) on economic growth and inflation. The security and confidence of businesses and the elderly are being defended, emphasizing that these tax increases effectively strip the average wage earner of one month's salary and the pensioner of one month's pension.
2024-07-29
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The politician is strongly opposed to tax hikes, especially during an economic downturn, arguing that it is the "wrong approach." He criticizes the government's consolidated tax increase (nearly one billion euros annually) and demands a swift reduction in administrative costs through a negative supplementary budget. He stresses the necessity of ensuring stability for businesses and easing public concern over the cost of living.
2024-07-22
15th Riigikogu, Riigikogu's extraordinary session.
The speaker is vehemently opposed to the government’s planned increase in the tax burden, which will impose a billion-euro strain on individuals and businesses. He demands fiscal responsibility and criticizes the budget proportions, noting that a 123 million euro cut is being discussed as if it were a dramatic event. He stresses Isamaa’s stance against reducing the livelihood of the elderly and cutting pensions.
2024-07-15
15th Riigikogu, Extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
Economic considerations revolve around fiscal predictability and the protection of taxpayers’ legitimate expectation when new taxes are introduced. The speaker opposes the rapid implementation of the car tax, arguing that it violates the legally mandated notice period, thereby underscoring the priority of taxpayer rights.