Taxes and regulations

[kryptqnick]

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?

[1714598487]

1714598487

[1714598487]

1714598487

[1714598487]

1714598487

[1714598487]

1714598487

[batang_bitcoin]

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.

[Eternu]

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.

[hase0278]

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).

[Ranly123]

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.

[muddy waters]

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.  

[mimienamphine]

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.

[Bitcoincole]

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.

[BitHodler]

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.

[Dreamchaser21]

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.

[spirali]

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.

[Hydrogen]

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.

[elghoniya]

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.

[pitiflin]

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?

It is a currency so taxes would be charged depending upon where you live in. However, the taxes are charged in US and Canada are on capital gains that you get from bitcoin/cryptos. So you have to pay a tax only when you cash out. You don't get taxed on your holdings.

[richardsNY]

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.

Finally someone thinking like me. I am not against taxation, but not in the way we as tax payers only serve as cash cows for the government. I am seriously done with that -- the worst part is that people aren't subject to tax once, but their entire life when it concerns the same amount of money. It's pure theft when you are being taxed every year over the same amount of money. It's a system where if you don't do anything to up your fiat wealth, the constantly returning taxes will empty your bank account within a few decades, and that process speeds up significantly when you also calculate how much value your fiat wealth is losing year after year. In all the years that we as brave citizens paid out due taxes, has anything within your state or country actually improved? I only see everything go backwards instead of forwards....

[Indrawan77]

Well it depends on how the government look at crypto, crypto was meant as currency but in reality more people are using it as assets, so when the government state crypto as asset it is not a wrong judgement, but I believe it should be treated as currency because the main purpose of crypto being created was as currency, for me taxing crypto is not a problem but the government should go easy on the tax percentage

[cutikanzilong]

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?

I think about cryptocurrency is a digital investment tool not as an investment tool in the form of property. Digital investment is not taxed as is the case with a taxable property. Bitcoin can not be used as a means of payment due to its volatile nature

[fiulpro]

Just to calrify, its not the property or asset that is taxed, but the gains made through these assets are taxed. This is termed as capital gains. Capital is the property that we own or basically our assets and the gains made by use of such capital is the amount that we earn aa profit.
Even the money that we deposit in banks can be taxed, but not directly. The interest that the banks provide is added and this interest is taken as capital gain, now there are different tax slabs as to how much tax is to be implied on what gains. Accordingly either our gains/profit is relieved of tax if its below any existing tax slab, and if it falls under a certain slab then it is taxed.

Similarly, bitcoin is seen as an asset because it has a apprecative and depreciative nature i.e. it changes its value with time, actually more frequent than other assets. Thus the gains that we make through simply holding bitcoins  comes under our capital gains.

But all of this is calculated only when we try to convert our bitcoins in local currency. Because that is when the actual money comes into play and so does the taxation system.

[fantasticX5]

The government has the right to ask what is due to them as it is clear in the government code that every citizen's of the country should pay taxes. But here in crypto we need regulations to move forward and gain the mass adoption.

[btc78]

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?

Actually i have no issue about taxation or neven been,because i believe that this is my obligation being a human that earns in this side,so i dont really care on how and what i will be paying tax whats important is why would i pay..

And if we will only check our government bylaws you'll find that paying taxes is our obligation everytime we earn enough amounts to be obliged