The recently concluded spring session of the Seimas was full of contrasts, and the legislation passed by Parliament leaves a mixed impression. On the one hand, there were forward-thinking decisions aimed at modernizing and strengthening our economy. On the other, there were changes that could wipe out all positive progress in one stroke.
Forty Lithuanian organizations—uniting patients, doctors, citizens, and businesses—have addressed the leaders and members of the Seimas (Parliament). They urge the Parliament to reject proposed legislation that would ban additional co-payments for state-funded healthcare services.
Associations Investors’ Forum, Unicorns Lithuania, the Confederation of Lithuanian Industrialists, and the Lithuanian Business Confederation today submitted an official appeal to the Ethics and Procedures Committee of the Lithuanian Parliament, requesting an investigation into potential violations of the Parliament’s statute and the Basic Law on Legislation, committed by the Budget and Finance Committee during the consideration of legislative proposals related to tax reform.
In his annual address, President Gitanas Nausėda clearly outlined Lithuania’s geopolitical directions and priorities. The speech emphasized the need to strengthen national security and contribute to collective defense within NATO. The Investors’ Forum – an association that unites the largest and most active investors in Lithuania’s economy – consistently highlights that national security is the country’s top priority, without which prosperity and economic growth cannot be achieved. Thus, the President, along with the business community and society at large, speaks the same language.
At an open forum titled “Defend the Economy”, held in Vilnius, over 200 business associations invited Lithuanian policymakers to engage in discussions about the country’s proposed tax reform. Economists and representatives from various industry and business sectors emphasized that the current restructuring of the tax system is being carried out hastily and without proper assessment. They argued that alternative methods of funding defense have not been adequately considered, and well-reasoned arguments are being overlooked.
