Taxes and regulations - page 8. | Bitcointalksearch.org

elghoniya

newbie

Activity: 111

Merit: 0

Quote from: kryptqnick on May 05, 2018, 01:34:41 PM

Today I was on a conference in Vilnius and went on a lecture about cryptocurrencies. I would like to share some aspects which I did't see so clear before. As we know, among those states which want to regulate cryptos, there are those which consider them as property and others as means of payment. The first approach is usually seen when there are tax companies around, because money is not taxed, but possession is. So when a state days they consider cryptos as property, it means they are getting taxed, while this is not the case with means of payment.
What do you think of this?

Every financial transactions is taxable. I think, the government should take taxes of the crypto transactions in their country.

Hydrogen

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1441

Quote from: kryptqnick on May 05, 2018, 01:34:41 PM

So when a state days they consider cryptos as property, it means they are getting taxed, while this is not the case with means of payment.What do you think of this?

Crypto currencies are difficult to categorize, they have traits of currencies which can be utilized for the purchase and sale of goods and services. They also have traits of equities or commodities. Then there are traits of crypto which are similar to gold and precious metals in terms of having limited supply and limited production.

The best way to close this debate, I think, is to create an entirely new class for crypto currencies where crypto is taxed at extremely low rates to best fuel economic growth, create jobs and otherwise reverse negative economic trends we're witnessing in many places. Deregulated and decentralized crypto is the best option for everyone, in my opinion.

Many analysts are attempting to put bitcoin into asset classes where it doesn't perfectly fit. Its like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The best solution is to create an entirely new asset class.

spirali

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 61

Quote from: Bitcoincole on May 05, 2018, 05:38:12 PM

I think that conference which to regulates taxes for cryptocurrency are not been a final regulations to legally accepted which can base on what G-20 conference because it follows the international law apprehends for every country, and as now the decisions of G20 bitcoin is been classified as an asset so I guess every state will follow that declaration.

It's a pity because Satoshi Nakamoto clearly envisioned a new currency (not an asset). Sincerely, it is fair to consider it as an asset right now but only because of the crazy speculation around it. When mass adoption occurs, cryptocurrencies will finally play their original role, but the tax offices might never consider them back as currencies... So we will probably pay taxes for holding cryptocurrencies while we will never pay taxes for holding a stack of banknotes.

Dreamchaser21

full member

Activity: 686

Merit: 108

Quote from: kryptqnick on May 05, 2018, 01:34:41 PM

Today I was on a conference in Vilnius and went on a lecture about cryptocurrencies. I would like to share some aspects which I did't see so clear before. As we know, among those states which want to regulate cryptos, there are those which consider them as property and others as means of payment. The first approach is usually seen when there are tax companies around, because money is not taxed, but possession is. So when a state days they consider cryptos as property, it means they are getting taxed, while this is not the case with means of payment.
What do you think of this?

Many countries are making their own regulations about cryptocurrency and the main purpose is to collect taxes. There is no final statement about cryptocurrency here in my place buy I know it will happen soon. Regulations is ok for me as long as the regulations is transfaren.

BitHodler

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1179

I don't see anything wrong with tax as long as the tax rates aren't exorbitant. I however have to point out that if crypto holdings are considered property, it doesn't mean that just by paying property tax you're done with it.

I personally am subject to 3 different tax categories when we talk about property tax. It also makes a significant difference when you compare short term gains with longer term gains.

It's a complex system that in the worst case (obviously depending on the country and state), will cost you close to 50% with how everything adds up. In the US this is the hard reality already, which is pretty insane.

Bitcoincole

full member

Activity: 504

Merit: 102

I think that conference which to regulates taxes for cryptocurrency are not been a final regulations to legally accepted which can base on what G-20 conference because it follows the international law apprehends for every country, and as now the decisions of G20 bitcoin is been classified as an asset so I guess every state will follow that declaration.

mimienamphine

member

Activity: 252

Merit: 12

I think taxes are outdated because the authorities are no more using our taxes for the intended purpose.They are stealing our taxes to enrich themselves so I honestly do not support taxes now because of our leaders actions.The regulations on bitcoin is also against cryptocurrency which should change now.This is a free world so I do not understand why governments try to regulate bitcoin because they are afraid of losing taxes.

muddy waters

member

Activity: 294

Merit: 10

JOIN THE NEXT MEGATREND IN CRYPTO!

Unless bitcoin becomes a more or less traditional "currency" (accepted by all participants of the market and as widespread as fiat money) it is logical that it is regarded as an asset to be taxed.
Most BTC owners still threat it as a way of speculation on its volatility (buy at dip, sell at peak in order to convert to fiat money).
If you still can't buy a cup of coffee using bitcoin it does not perform its main function as a means of payment so it should conform to the rules established for "property" in general.

Ranly123

full member

Activity: 952

Merit: 104

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: kryptqnick on May 05, 2018, 01:34:41 PM

Today I was on a conference in Vilnius and went on a lecture about cryptocurrencies. I would like to share some aspects which I did't see so clear before. As we know, among those states which want to regulate cryptos, there are those which consider them as property and others as means of payment. The first approach is usually seen when there are tax companies around, because money is not taxed, but possession is. So when a state days they consider cryptos as property, it means they are getting taxed, while this is not the case with means of payment.
What do you think of this?

Possession of money mean you have it as your property and that entitled us to pay for our tax. As part of the society, tax is the first thing when the government want to help in prove the country we're in. So it is okay to pay our taxes than having the crypto banned.

hase0278

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 544

Quote from: kryptqnick on May 05, 2018, 01:34:41 PM

What do you think of this?

Everything has tax, including currencies. When we use them, we are obliged to pay the tax so it is literally the same no matter what. Crypto will still be taxed when it is considered as a currency, and it will also be taxed If considered as an asset. Nevertheless, I think taxing bitcoin will surely be a great help for mass adoption to occur(since it will be known by public when they announce tax regulations of it).

Eternu

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 257

To be honest I use crypto as an asset, most of the times at least. But my opinion is that crypto should be used for paying and not holding. After all bitcoin is made to be currency and not asset. But governments will not accept crypto without taxes, so I guess taxes are maybe inevitable. At the end, opinion of common people matters little.

batang_bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 3080

Merit: 603

It all depends to the state where you are belong. This debate will never end that most of us treats bitcoin as traditional assets but there are people who are against with it. With the last G-20 conference, bitcoin has been classified as an asset so I guess every state will follow that declaration but they are also free to think of it if they don't see it as an asset, it's up to them.

kryptqnick

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1402

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Today I was on a conference in Vilnius and went on a lecture about cryptocurrencies. I would like to share some aspects which I did't see so clear before. As we know, among those states which want to regulate cryptos, there are those which consider them as property and others as means of payment. The first approach is usually seen when there are tax companies around, because money is not taxed, but possession is. So when a state days they consider cryptos as property, it means they are getting taxed, while this is not the case with means of payment.
What do you think of this?

Topic: Taxes and regulations - page 8. (Read 2216 times)