By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

Economic perspectives are confined to procedural criticism regarding state budget management, specifically questioning the ministers' sweeping power to reallocate figures. Furthermore, the local bog restoration project is being criticized as a potential waste or outright theft of state and European funds. There is no broader stance on taxes, trade, or economic growth.

Strongly supports market-based competition and opposes state subsidies for profitable companies, such as Eesti Energia. It believes that subsidies for renewable energy and additional investments in the grids make electricity more expensive, thus harming Estonia's competitiveness. It expects that businesses should earn profits without state subsidies.

Strongly supports taxing windfall profits in the banking sector to influence bank behavior and ensure a fair distribution of returns to depositors. It is critical of excessive regulation (such as mandatory ESG reporting), which damages the competitiveness of Estonia and Europe, preferring a more flexible approach. Skeptical of experts who are "on someone's payroll" (e.g., on a bank’s payroll).

The economic outlook is pessimistic, raising concerns over European competitiveness and the state of the Estonian economy. There is fierce opposition to the government's tax hikes (dubbed the "tax rally"), with critics arguing that they are detrimental to the economy. Furthermore, the basis for the government's optimism regarding economic growth is being questioned. The Lithuanian bank tax is cited as an example supporting the view that such taxes are harmful.

Economic views are fiscally conservative: tax increases (such as the security tax and VAT hikes) are opposed because they increase the proportion of consumption taxes and damage competitiveness. They demand a strict review of state expenditures and an end to wasteful spending (e.g., Rail Baltic, renewable energy subsidies, bureaucracy).

The speaker is strongly opposed to tax hikes, especially during an economic recession, arguing that they stifle economic activity. They support fiscal transparency and demand the precise quantification of budgetary impacts. Regarding energy, the speaker advocates for national autonomy in decision-making and the temporary suspension of CO2 emissions trading to guarantee affordable electricity for businesses and households.

It strongly opposes the government's tax hikes (VAT, car tax) and cuts (benefits for large families, income tax exemption). It finds that these measures negatively impact the economic security of families with children and their willingness to have more children. It supports a fiscal policy that enhances the sense of security for families.

Economic perspectives emphasize fiscal transparency and the limited nature of the state’s financial capacity—which the speaker notes is constrained. The speaker is worried that the reorganization of services might be masking cuts, and demands precise accounting of both cost increases and initial expenditures to truly grasp the impact of the 2.8 million euro cost component.

Data is scarce.

Economic perspectives center on the management and efficiency of the public sector budget. Concerns are being raised that the reduction in bureaucracy might be illusory if the ministry's budget remains the same while the Health Board's budget simultaneously increases, raising doubts about fiscal discipline.

Supports increased state spending on critical infrastructure, such as roads and the completion of Via Baltica. It expresses economic concern regarding the stability of CO2 quota sales revenue, linking the decline in revenue to the contraction of industry, and criticizes the diversion of these funds to Rail Baltica at the expense of environmental projects.