Agenda Profile: Riina Solman
Reconsideration of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act (364 UA) left unpromulgated by the President of the Republic
2024-07-15
15th Riigikogu, Extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
Political Position
The political stance is strongly opposed to the motor vehicle tax bill, especially following the amendments pointed out by the President, arguing that it has become even worse, according to the assessment of the Chamber of Disabled People. This position is value-based, emphasizing social justice, state credibility, and the preservation of the will to defend among large families and people with disabilities. The speaker criticizes the coalition government's proposal to disregard the President's plea.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the social impacts and administrative complexity of the motor vehicle tax, focusing on the debate between granting exceptions (tax exemptions) and implementing targeted support measures (benefits). Reference is made to the positions held by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Ministry of Social Protection and the criticism voiced by EPIKoda. The necessity of calculating the administrative burden and the costs associated with developing new support services is separately emphasized.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, accusatory, and deeply concerned, aimed squarely at the coalition government's inaction and lack of empathy. It employs both emotional appeals (such as faith in the state and a sense of security) and logical questions regarding the costs of developing new support measures and the working hours required of officials. The speaker uses direct references to the ignoring of key interest groups (specifically mentioning the Association of Large Families) to underscore the government's procedural flaws.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponent is the coalition government and its Minister of Social Protection, who is being criticized for ignoring proposals made by interest groups (the Association of Large Families) last spring. The criticism is aimed at political choices (the weakening of the law) and the attitude of officials who seem to imply that people with disabilities are abusing special provisions. The confrontation is intense and focuses on procedural and social failures.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation focuses externally, outside the Parliament (Riigikogu), heavily relying on the views of interest groups (the Chamber of Disabled People, the Association of Large Families) and the President when criticizing the government. The speaker utilizes the assessments provided by these interest groups to substantiate their arguments. There is no evidence of cross-party cooperation or any attempt to seek compromise.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is exclusively at the national level, addressing the nationwide motor vehicle tax and its impact on specific social groups.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives are linked to the social justice of taxation, opposing the motor vehicle tax due to its negative impact on large families and people with disabilities. Fiscal prudence is emphasized, raising questions about the calculation of costs related to the development, administration, and monitoring of new targeted support services.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
At the forefront of social concerns is the protection of people with disabilities, informal caregivers, and large families from the negative impacts of the motor vehicle tax. The speaker demands the restoration of a sense of fairness and criticizes the officials’ attitude that targeted subsidies are better than exemptions, an approach which could increase the administrative burden.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on obstructing the adoption of the Motor Vehicle Tax Law (364 UA) and correcting its social disparities after the President failed to proclaim it. The speaker is a strong opponent of the bill, demanding that the proposals made by the Chamber of Disabled Persons and the Union of Large Families be taken into consideration.
2 Speeches Analyzed