MP Explains Controversial gambling Tax Vote

You’ve been critical of lowering teh gambling tax.in Wednesday’s final vote in the Riigikogu, you voted in favor. What should we make of this change?

There’s no change of heart here – this is still a very bad piece of legislation. I’d even say it’s the worst one this session. It drains money from the state budget, culture loses funding, and it increases money laundering risks.I’ve always spoken out against this. I’ve urged others to reconsider, especially MPs from Eesti 200, as this has been a key project for a few members. It’s no secret the coalition was held hostage: the threat was that if this bill didn’t pass, the state budget wouldn’t get votes and the coalition would fall.

I was critical of the substance,and I still am.Unfortunately, explaining that didn’t work. This bill would have passed with or without my vote. But I saw a need to make savings in the state budget. I proposed cutting €9 million from the maritime transport subsidy for one year – that’s over €40 million across four years. That was my compromise: if we move forward with this bill,let’s at least save money. I was ready to support it on those terms,and the agreement was that the goverment would submit the savings proposal.

Saving €9 million a year adds up to €41.2 million over four years. That money covered urgent needs not in the budget: €1.5 million for culture, to support the Estonian National Symphony Orchestra (ERSO) and theaters facing closure; to cover the discount for the heavy vehicle tax; and to invest in addiction prevention, addressing problems this other bill will worsen. My aim was to save money in the budget.And thanks to my proposal, culture is actually getting additional funding.

Yes, the Gambling Tax Act takes money away, but we’re putting money back in. That was the compromise. I remain extremely critical of the Gambling Tax Act; it’s a bad law.

You mentioned a deal in exchange for supporting this bill. Who did you make that deal with?

With the leaders of my party.

What kind of precedent does this kind of “suicide vest politics” – your own words – set for future cooperation?

It’s not a good one. if one party uses it, others may be tempted to do the same, and it will blow up eventually.I’ve never supported this kind of behaviour.