Kārlis Purgailis, the chief economist of Citadele Bank, emphasized that while fuel price ceilings may offer temporary relief, a more effective approach for Latvia would be to flexibly adjust the excise tax. He explained that government interventions in free market factors, such as price regulation, generally lead to more risks and long-term negative effects than short-term benefits, implying that such measures are not effective in the long run. Purgailis highlighted that fuel retailers should not bear the burden of compensating for price increases, with excise tax accounting for 25% of diesel and 32% of gasoline retail prices.

Purgailis also pointed out the significant role of the value-added tax, which makes up 17% of the total retail price, suggesting that both of these components—excise and value-added taxes—are under direct government control and can be adjusted in the short term to partially offset the rapid increase in fuel prices. Furthermore, another economist, Pēteris Strautiņš from Luminor Bank, supported the notion that the government should avoid imposing price ceilings. He argued that instead of capping prices, efficient taxation policy adaptation would serve as a better long-term strategy for managing fuel costs while maintaining market order and stability.

This perspective reflects a growing concern among economists regarding government interventions that might disrupt the natural functioning of the market. By advocating for tax adjustments instead of price capping, they call for measures that enhance economic resilience and sustainability, which could ultimately lead to a more stable and fair pricing system for fuel consumers in Latvia.