I extend my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of the crash on the Trakia Motorway. We will not politicize the situation; we will wait for the expert assessments of the incident and then see what the shortcomings were and what systemic solutions need to be adopted. We have repeatedly raised the issue that the Road Safety Fund should be spent not on other purposes, but specifically on road safety. But we do not want the tragedy to be politicized; its causes must be established, as must the future measures needed to prevent such accidents from happening again. Martin Dimitrov said this in an interview with bTV and went on to comment:
Regarding the tax changes, they proposed one set of provisions during the public consultation and another in the plenary chamber. With the excess-profits tax, the result is that if one company has, for example, €16 million in profit, another €8 million, and a third €2 million, all three pay the same tax. And when the profit is €2 million, the tax is roughly €2 million, meaning it may be not 33%, but 100%. I gave this example to the Ministry of Finance during the Budget Committee meeting, and they remained silent like partisans under interrogation. In other words, this was planned to guarantee revenue for the budget. In practice, they are telling all such companies: if you lower prices and your profitability falls, we will take a larger share of your profit and you will suffer more. That is why companies in the sectors targeted for excess-profits taxation have no incentive to lower prices.
The second major question is this: if an excess-profits tax is to be imposed, and the biggest price increase was in the energy sector, why is it not among the sectors subject to excess-profits taxation? The Finance Ministry thought long and hard about how to respond and finally came up with the answer that there would be a pan-European solution and they would wait for it.
The government was elected to solve the deficit problem, but it has made it worse. The deficit for 2026 is 5.7%—unseen in 30 years. The situation is repeated in 2027 and is leading to substantial debt. And someone is always to blame—not only for this year, but for the next one as well. They are coming up with a very long list of new taxes, social security contributions, excise duties and fines—next year, under the new budget, they will take an additional €2 billion from the people in total. Alongside unfavorable international factors, such as rising oil prices, come the government's unreasonable actions—high deficits and high debt. And when this debt starts flowing into the economy, demand increases, which in turn drives up prices, resulting in a perfect price storm. The debt will amount to more than €6 billion, or €8 billion including refinancing.
All of this can be resolved through a sensible budget policy. There are major loopholes in the expenditure side of the budget. For 2026, GDP is €3 billion higher than projected in the budget forecast. In return for this money, the authorities should have collected additional revenue through more effective work by the revenue administration, and then we would not be wondering how to finance one activity or another. There is no need for higher taxes, but for better tax collection. Instead, they are starting to tax everything that moves—and everything that does not move—in the economy.
Maintenance is a huge expenditure item, and a detailed review could identify significant savings. Public procurement is second. They continue to build motorways at astronomical costs per kilometer. We were outraged by similar practices under the GERB and DPS government, and the current authorities are continuing to do the same. For 2027–2029, the government plans to borrow €5.5 billion more than is needed to finance the deficit. What this money is for—there is no explanation. They are spending like a man possessed.
Following the “Botash” model means speaking directly with the European Commission about changes to the second pension pillar, rather than with the citizens. This was an attempt at nationalization. More than 4 million Bulgarians have accounts in the second pillar. At present, everyone has the right, if they choose, to transfer their money to the National Social Security Institute (NOI). The state should do nothing more than conduct an information campaign. It should invite people to check the returns in their pension fund and, if they wish, switch to a more successful one or transfer their contributions directly to the NOI. I do not want Galab Donev, or “Progressive Bulgaria,” or anyone else to make such decisions for me.
They corrected their blunder over the excise duty on homemade rakia, but left in place a provision under which the possession, offering and sale of rakia would be subject to sanctions. They have replaced the fight against the oligarchy with a fight against homemade rakia. Why do they have to harass people? If there are more serious violations and illegal production, there is an entirely different procedure for imposing sanctions. This seems utterly petty to me, aimed at a small number of predominantly elderly people, mostly in small settlements. Why they want to harass them—I cannot understand.
The investment environment in our country is deteriorating. After the large deficit and the new taxes came a hefty fine for a major foreign investor, a retail food chain. And we urgently need measures to promote investment because the current model of economic development is beginning to run out of steam. We proposed, following the Estonian model, a zero tax rate on reinvested profits because we need more capital and each worker to be more productive in order to receive a higher salary. There is a risk of an economic downturn; it is included in the budget's explanatory notes, but it could deepen and lead us into recession.
That is why this budget, which has not yet been officially submitted, must be withdrawn and completely rewritten.