The government first raised taxes on flat-rate taxpayers and renters to curb inflation, and now it is permanently directing an almost identical amount to veterans' pensions, without having saved anything on its own apparatus.
Just a few months ago, the government of Andrej Plenković and Finance Minister Tomislav Ćorić were convincing the public that some citizens and entrepreneurs had to pay more to curb inflation. Flat-rate craftsmen and private renters were targeted, and a special tax on excess profits was also announced. The stance was clear: there is too much money in the economy, consumption is strong, prices are rising, so it is necessary to withdraw some money from the system. According to a report by Teleskop.hr from August 7, 2026, the same government is now announcing an additional 88.5 million euros per year for increasing veterans' and special pensions.
It should be immediately emphasized that the problem is not the veterans. Those who participated in the defense of Croatia have the right to expect the state to fulfill its obligations, and it is also justified to additionally value time spent in the combat sector. The essential problem lies in the government's fiscal logic. If the money that remained with a flat-rate craftsman or private renter was recently presented as an inflationary problem, Plenković and Ćorić must now explain why an additional almost 90 million euros of permanent budget spending is no longer such a problem.
The numerical coincidence is particularly striking. According to the government's initial plan, the additional burden on flat-rate craftsmen was supposed to bring in about 60 million euros per year. The estimated additional revenue from private renters would range between 16 and 22 million euros. In total, then, we are talking about approximately 76 to 82 million euros per year. This is almost the same order of magnitude as the 88.5 million euros per year that the state is now allocating for pension increases.
There is a justified suspicion that the new taxes were imposed with the aim of covering the costs of pensions, and that the government, using the inflation story, actually concealed a simple political decision: to increase benefits for some, and to take revenue from others. This is a brutal redistribution, not exclusively a fight against price growth.
Before increasing levies on citizens and entrepreneurs, the government did not prove that it seriously tried to find those 80 or 90 million euros within its own system. Croatia has had more than 550 units of local and regional self-government for years, and about the need to merge municipalities, rationalize administration, and reduce the number of institutions, there is only talk, without real political will for a serious intervention.
The question is why the government, before introducing new taxes, did not prepare a detailed savings plan through reducing administration, why it did not publish an analysis of the number of employees and determine where there are surpluses, and why it did not limit new hiring where it is not necessary. The same applies to the number of agencies, institutes, administrative councils, official vehicles, and fees. If the government had first reduced its own expenditures and thereby saved, for example, 50 or 70 million euros, it would have had a much stronger argument for a possible tax increase. Such an order of events has not been seen.
It would be wrong to turn this discussion into a conflict between veterans and flat-rate craftsmen or private renters. A taxpayer who disagrees with higher taxes is not claiming that a veteran does not deserve a higher pension. The question is directed exclusively at the government: why did it first seek additional money from them, rather than from its own system?
Plenković and Ćorić should therefore explain to the public what has changed. If a few months earlier it was necessary to withdraw funds from the economy to reduce inflation, why is it now acceptable to increase permanent budget expenditures by an almost identical amount? It is likely that the government simply believes that raising veterans' pensions is a more socially and politically priority than reducing the tax burden on craftsmen and landlords. Such a decision is legitimate in a political sense, but then it should be clearly called what it is.
This is not just about curbing inflation, but about the state deciding from whom it will take more and to whom it will give more. Veterans' rights can be entirely justified, but precisely because of that, they must not serve as a cover for a much more unpleasant question: how willing was the state to save on its own costs before deciding to reach into the pockets of citizens.
