2024-05-07 16:22:45
This is already the third debate for the presidential candidates. Last time they discussed foreign policy issues, defense and national defense on LRT television.
This time the topic is economy, taxes and social policy.
He revealed how he would increase pensions
The debate started with the issue of pensions – currently Lithuania allocates 7% to them. gross domestic product (GDP). The European Union (EU) average is about 11 percent. The poverty level in Lithuania among pensioners is about 40 percent. The candidates were asked what they would do about increasing pensions.
Remigijus Žemaitaitis, the candidate of the “Nemunos ausra” party, said: if he becomes president, he will cancel the pension funds.
Giedrimas Jeglinskas, the candidate of the Democratic Union “Vardan Lietuvos” and Eduardas Vaitkus, a doctor aspiring for the post of the country’s leader, emphasized: it is necessary to increase pensions.
“Pensions need to be increased, pensioners only survive, not live, we cannot even think about a dignified pension. When it comes to sources, we have to consider progressive taxes. There are people who earn significantly more, and they have to pay more,” suggested G. Jeglinskas.
“Pensioners don’t live. They exist and do not live with dignity. And from whom to take money? Answer: from economics. And the Lithuanian government is destroying the economy”, said E. Vaitkus.
He gave the example of stopping the transit of “Belaruskalij” fertilizers, which he says has a direct impact on food prices.
G. Nausėda reminded that it is necessary not only to increase pensions, but also to improve the lives of pensioners in other ways, for example, to carry out the reform of long-term care. I.Šimonytė’s coalition promised it, but did not fulfill it.
“The ruling coalition had promised this reform, but unfortunately it probably did not consider it a priority and did not implement it. I hope that this can be done with another socially sensitive government.
Health and other services that make it easier to move around Lithuania are very important for the elderly. It is possible to increase pensions, there are economic sources for this, it is necessary to set the priorities correctly”, he said.
Mr. Nausėda said that he was not against the second tier of pensions, but he thought that people should not be forced there, and should also be able to withdraw at least part of the money.
For his part, Labor Party candidate Andrius Mazuronis emphasized that the number of people receiving small pensions in Lithuania is disproportionately high.
“Few people talk about several problems of the current pension system,” said A. Mazuronis.
In his opinion, the current pension accumulation system is incorrect.
“People cannot be forced to go into second-tier pension funds,” he said.
Lawyer Ignas Vēgėlė suggested increasing pensions from the “Sodra” reserve. According to him, part of the money in the reserve could be used for maternity and paternity benefits. He added that he does not support mandatory savings in pension funds.
Dainius Žalimas, candidate of the Freedom Party, was of the opinion that it is necessary to try to make pensions grow faster than inflation. This could be achieved through economic development.
“I do not agree with I. Vēgėlė’s proposal to distribute the reserve, because it is necessary to prevent pensions from being reduced in the future,” he said.
Said the approach to the NT tax
The presidential candidates were asked what type of property tax (NT) they would support.
E. Vaitkus emphasized that he does not agree with any.
“There should not be a NT tax, there should not be a tax for air, there should not be a tax for war”, said E. Vaitkus.
G. Jeglinskas also said that he does not support any real estate tax.
“There cannot be any real estate tax, we are not at the level of the country’s economic development to be able to have such a tax,” said G. Jeglinskas.
R. Žemaitaitis seconded the candidates – if a person has one property for himself, it should not be taxed.
G. Nausėda testified: it is necessary to talk about the entire tax system, not its individual parts.
“One can reason that all taxes should be eliminated, but that’s not very responsible, especially for presidential candidates. My approach to real estate tax is very simple – large amount of tax-free income and progressiveness”, explained G. Nausėda.
I. Vēgėlė stressed: Real estate is a person’s property, there should be no taxes for it.
“Taxing the first home is the biggest mistake, it cannot be done. It is not necessary to talk about tax increases, but about their benefits to society. Does an ordinary person benefit from it?” said I. Vēgėlė.
D. Žalimas emphasized: the current real estate tax is progressive, it is paid by people with more expensive housing.
“Until there are better proposals, I am not proposing to eliminate or change that tax,” he testified.
A. Mazuronis seconded: the real estate tax already exists, it is paid by legal entities. It is appropriate, but it would be wrong to tax natural persons for whom housing is the first. He also criticized the level of redistribution, when taxation would depend on different municipalities.
“I cannot support such an unfair system,” said A. Mazuronis.
Meanwhile, G. Nausėda emphasized that those who said that they would not approve of any taxes are only deceiving the public.
What would happen to energy in case of war?
The candidates were also asked about what priorities they see in energy, especially in the face of war.
I. Vēgėlė is convinced that there is eerie incompetence and opacity in the energy sector.
“When energy prices rose, people were simply robbed. The government has not responded to the outrageous prices,” he said.
G. Jeglinskas, for his part, emphasized that it is important to have energy independence from Russia.
“Everyone understands that energy independence from Russia is important, and we must strive for it. The green course is an important direction for our energy, we must invest in the sun, wind, and we are moving towards that. Prices must be balanced,” he taught.
In the opinion of G. Nausėda, the liberalization of the energy market was too early, which is why the prices rose, and the residents were overpaid.
“We have to make efforts to increase competition, because there will be no other recipes,” explained G. Nausėda.
R. Žemaitaitis said that he would be the president who would return energy to the hands of the state. He spared no criticism of market liberalization.
“What is happening today with Ignitis is incomprehensible,” said R. Žemaitaitis.
R. Žemaitaitis said he also supports wind energy, but such power plants should be located on land, not in the sea.
D. Žalimas seconded that Lithuania should pursue the green course as much as possible.
“Lithuania can even become an exporter of electricity,” he thought.
Meanwhile, E. Vaitkus offered to buy electricity from Belarus, saying that it would be cheaper that way.
“In case of war, we will not be able to take care of energy, because we will not be left. Because of this, it is necessary to take care of how to avoid war. <...> I suggest buying electricity directly from Belarus – cheaply,” he said.
“We were already looking for ways to buy cheap gas. It was very politically expensive. I really wouldn’t suggest going that way,” A. Mazuronis retorted to him.
It is still possible to trade with Russia, Belarus
Lithuanian business can still trade with Russia and Belarus. The presidential candidates were asked whether trade with aggressive countries should be restricted or banned altogether.
I. Vēgėlė said that the sanctions should be enforced, but it is also important to assess whether they are all really important.
“We try to introduce sanctions and comply with them, but we don’t.” We punish some companies, we say that they are bad, and we don’t even touch the others. I was confirmed yesterday that Teltonika sells in Russia. Everyone else is bad and this company is good? We have to implement the EU sanctions, but we have to discuss with the EU whether those sanctions are useful. In my understanding, due to the sanctions “Belaruskalij” Russia takes all the benefits”, said I. Vēgėlė.
“The person whose family is possibly evading those sanctions is speaking,” replied D. Žalimas to I. Vēgėlė’s speech, referring to the company “Vilpra” managed by his family.
“My brother’s company has not violated any sanctions. All those tests are obviously ordered because I’m inconvenient. D. Žalimai, and you are possibly a fraud because you patronized your wife so that she would work for the election campaign of the Freedom Party”, I. Vēgėlė retorted to him.
Meanwhile, A. Mazuronis continued the discussion about sanctions. In his opinion, they are all bypassed.
“This is not a matter for one president,” he assured.
G. Nausėda reminded that the sanctions are set by the EU and it has the means to ensure that the sanctions are complied with. Unfortunately, some companies still manage to circumvent the sanctions.
“Some companies transport goods to Belarus through Kyrgyzstan. But I could not say that the sanctions do not bring any result. Look at the overall state of the Russian economy, it is truly unenviable. We have to impose the same strict sanctions on Belarus, including fertilizers. We have to talk about the import of Belarusian and Russian agricultural products. There can be no relations with these regimes,” said G. Nausėda.
G. Jeglinskas spoke similarly: it is said that sanctions are a long-term process, we just need to remain united.
“It’s not a matter of whether you want it or not. Russia needs to be brought to its knees. The war economy will not last long,” he said.
E. Vaitkus held a different opinion – in his opinion, all sanctions should be terminated.
“I must remind everyone that a brutal war is going on in Ukraine. During that war, Russian gas flows on the territory of Ukraine, Russia pays Ukraine money for gas transportation. Our government wants to play angels because it doesn’t see the real situation. Maybe let’s get over it and say that we need to trade with Russia the way America, Taiwan and other countries trade. If we try to explain that we can live poorer at the expense of pensioners just to punish Russia, then we will be the same,” said E. Vaitkus.
Talked about tax reform
The last question the candidates received was what tax benefits they would propose to eliminate.
According to G. Nausėda, the tax system is still not correct.
“There are many irregularities in this tax system. Income is taxed according to the type of income, not the amount. Therefore, I would advocate the introduction of a clear principle – those who earn a lot pay a lot, and those who earn little pay little,” he said.
G. Nausėda suggested reducing the taxable amount of income for raising children.
“The reform of the tax system must not become a curse, as it is now,” added G. Nausėda.
R. Žemaitaitis said: if he became president, he would not do any tax reform at least for the first two years.
“I am categorically against new taxes, the introduction or abolition of benefits,” he assured.
According to D. Zalim, the most important thing is the uniformity of the tax system. He suggested that incentives could be introduced for businesses that go in the direction of green energy.
“We should also talk about how to bring taxation of individual activities closer to labor relations. It happens that high income earners pay low taxes,” he added.
G. Jeglinskas emphasized: tax evasion is not the biggest problem.
“We need to direct the benefits to where the added value is the greatest,” he suggested.
According to A.Mazuroni, the biggest problem of tax reform is unpredictability. Also, there is a lack of progressiveness.
I. Vēgėlė seconded that the most important thing is the stability of taxes, there is no need to change them.
“We could talk about benefits that would stimulate the economy or reduce social exclusion. Two directions that would be suitable are VAT reduction for the basket of essential goods and benefits for reinvestments, which would encourage more efficient investment”, I. Vēgėlė thought.
E. Vaitkus, for his part, said that he was categorical.
“The tax system must be fundamentally changed, until that happens, taxes must be frozen.” This should be done comprehensively and in all spheres,” he said.
2024-05-07 16:22:45