Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin is now considered Art and not a currency

Bitcoin is making an art critic out of the Swedish taxman.

The largest Nordic economy is set to reject Bitcoin and its competitors as a currency and instead give the software the same tax treatment it would an antique Persian rug or a painting by Andy Warhol.

“Currencies are traditionally tied to a central bank or a geographic area,” Olof Wallin, an official at the Swedish Tax Agency who’s drafting rules for Bitcoin and the programmers who generate it, said in an interview. The Stockholm-based agency will probably “view Bitcoins as what we call another asset -- just like art or antiques.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-21/bitcoin-becomes-art-as-swedish-taxman-rejects-creative-currency.html

This is actually one of the first articles that made me say "Oh for fucks sake" out loud :P

Haha, but Bitcoin isn't a traditional currency. Marriage used to be between a man and a woman but people need to get with the times.


I guess you don't read too many mainstream media articles then?  ;D

I do unfortunately, but I think this one in particular.... Art? Really?

Lamestream media strikes again.

Do yourself a favor and stop reading and watching that stuff, it rots the brain.

This is interesting. Art is it...  :D

Given the generally slow pace of government agencies, I don't think this move is especially egregious. I might even class it as reasonable, coming as it does from government regulators. The key word that most of you missed (because you were too focused on the spin imparted by Bloomberg) is the word "Asset". Other government agencies have settled on classifying Bitcoin much like a security. Both are reasonable interpretations in these early days of something that hasn't really existed before.

But in your eagerness to laugh at this Bloomberg spin, you missed perhaps the best part of the article:


Sounds like Sweden is actually approaching this with a reasonable degree of sophistication.

What?

Have you never before witnessed the press trying to dumb-down a complex concept for the masses?

Not to this extent! LOL!

Ahahah this show us how ridicolous the current laws and governments are. Lol, art. So it is priceless! Ahahah

Kinda makes sense though. There was something that made me laugh at how they'd simplified the process in an article from the Telegraph. I'll try find it.

This is not that bad of an explanation, actually.

Well since every opinion is subjective, then I guess we should just treat it that way. The most important thing is that we can earn real cash with bitcoins and that's all that matters, whether someone considers it as an "art" or a "currency".

 :D i dont know if this request to laugh or to cry :D

Hahahahaha. Of course... We are all just playing digital monopoly.
???

Did you actually read it through?  The reaction ties with the headline but one point explains...

"The move would place Bitcoin in an asset class that includes antiques, jewelry, stamps and copyrights."

So any creative asset.  Bitcoins are created, so it seems a reasonable alignment.

Yeah, no where is it said "Bitcoin is Art". It must be a reading comprehension, or second language issue. :P

guys chill out, the UK and other european taxmen are also thinking the same thing. and the thing is, they are right.
emphasis on thinking. as its not been made official in most euro countries.. yet

but here is why they are right:

bitcoin is not a commodity, a share or a stock. its features resemble an asset. and as such the tax machines are treating it as such.
bitcoin in most countries descriptions of tax category, puts bitcoin in the 'asset' category.


now the bit in the article about currencies having to be linked to banks etc.. that is talking about FIAT currencies (legal tender) not about 'common currencies' which can be anything

now to clarify further. a currency can be absolutely anything.
people can treat gold as a currency - yet the tax man treat it as a commodity
people can trade business ownership as a currency - yet the tax man treats that as shares
people can trade business produce as a currency - yet the tax man treasts that as stock
people can trade vodka, cigarettes, labour as a currency - yet the tax man has other categories for these.

what im trying to say is whatever the taxman describes it has has no relevance to whether its a currency or not.

now lets get more detailed on tax:
when trading bitcoin for any product, (with barter considered) most countries beleive the trades occur on a 1:1 ratio meaning what you receive is on near equal value to the bitcoin value, thus no profit or loss has occured.

again in most countries the only time tax is applicable is on selling the bitcoin for FIAT, in which case in majority of countries income tax is applicable.

this is good for bitcoin, atleast talk to a accountant or tax expert before whining on the forum about bitcoin being considered an asset (same classification as art)

Digital art, digital asset , sounds very positive, these things are much more valuable than money