Kamala Harris might continue crackdowns on Bitcoin and the cryptospace

[yhiaali3]

I think the reason they can't ban bitcoin is because they are a representative democracy and value human rights so banning something is not an easy thing to do.
Yes, banning or blocking bitcoin is an impossible task so far but if we have anti bitcoin politicians then this will more or less affect the growth of bitcoin. So we need to elect and vote for politicians who are not against and open to bitcoin so that it can reach its full potential.

Yes, there is democracy in the United States, but I do not think that the decision to ban Bitcoin is related to human rights, but rather to the huge economic gains that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies bring.

It is true that there are opponents of Bitcoin in the Senate, but on the other hand, there are many who know that banning Bitcoin will deprive the country of huge economic resources due to the loss of investments and taxes that come from it, and at the same time, all of this may go into the hands of hostile countries, and this is what the US government does not want.

But of course, as you mentioned, it is better for a president who is supportive and open to Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

[Vod]

If crypto gets a crackdown, it will probably be less due to the public perception of corruption, and more due to the fresh water and energy costs involved. 

[Iranus]

I think the reason they can't ban bitcoin is because they are a representative democracy and value human rights so banning something is not an easy thing to do.
Yes, banning or blocking bitcoin is an impossible task so far but if we have anti bitcoin politicians then this will more or less affect the growth of bitcoin. So we need to elect and vote for politicians who are not against and open to bitcoin so that it can reach its full potential.

Yes, there is democracy in the United States, but I do not think that the decision to ban Bitcoin is related to human rights, but rather to the huge economic gains that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies bring.

It is true that there are opponents of Bitcoin in the Senate, but on the other hand, there are many who know that banning Bitcoin will deprive the country of huge economic resources due to the loss of investments and taxes that come from it, and at the same time, all of this may go into the hands of hostile countries, and this is what the US government does not want.

But of course, as you mentioned, it is better for a president who is supportive and open to Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.

They almost never banned it in the first place (2009), nor did they ever make any proposals to ban it like China did, until now. The United States, with an annual GDP of nearly $30 trillion, while its total market capitalization has been just over $2 trillion in recent years. I wonder, what benefits has bitcoin or cryptocurrency brought to the US economy since its inception until now?
In terms of taxes, they've probably only really benefited from significant tax breaks since bitcoin ETFs were approved, and that only happened earlier this year.

For my part, I have never agreed that bitcoin is playing a major or significant role in the economy of any country, especially the major powers.

[Lucius]

All those who claim that the regulations are trying to destroy the freedom to create such projects often point out those state agencies as evil, but I don't think that every kid who has a computer should have a completely open path to create a cryptocurrency, list it on CEX or something and then cheat thousands of people for millions of $ - who will then turn to the authorities to help them find the culprit.

Agree mostly.

Many people in the Bitcoin (and crypto) world were hugely angry with Sam Bankman-Fried, and they had all the right to that - because he did behave in a criminal way, misappropiating customer funds. But: how do you prevent this? With increased transaparency!

He is a good example of a spoiled kid who took advantage of the flaws in the system to play with other people's money, and that game ended up very badly for everyone who believed in him, and ultimately for himself. You may be aware (although I don't know if it had an impact on FTX) that during his mandate Trump abolished the mandatory regular checks of the financial status of companies below a certain amount, which then resulted in the failure of some banks in the US. Considering the scale of the damage, it is obvious that FTX was unattended for a very long time.

I'm slightly disagreeing in one of the points perhaps because I do think that "every kid" should be able to "create a cryptocurrency". However, even that kid should then learn that if they decide that this crypto has a premine and will benefit them, it has to provide transparent information to the customers if they want to trade that crypto, at least on a CEX platform. And not only the source code.

I wrote this in the context of countless scams that cause huge financial losses to people all over the world - of course every kid can do whatever he wants on his computer, but the market must be regulated in a way that does not allow anyone to participate in it. The way it looks today is really the wild west, but it obviously suits many people and that's why they try in every possible way to keep it that way.

What I would expect as a crypto owner from the Harris campaign if I was an US voter was however some clarity: There is the more radical anti-Bitcoin (and anti-crypto) fraction at the Democrats around Elizabeth Warren, and there is also an anti-privacy fraction. I would appreciate some distance of the Harris campaign from these groups. And crypto users leaning to the Democrats should fight against their projects, presenting good alternatives. The best the Democrats can do is focusing on investor protection without trying to "shrink" the crypto sector.

Looking for clarity in murky water is mostly an impossible mission - and what I want to say is that there are very few people among Democrats and Republicans who even understand what cryptocurrencies are and how to treat them. With rare exceptions, politicians are not very intelligent people, they are not capable but only suitable to carry out orders that come from positions that we ordinary people do not actually see.

[yhiaali3]

They almost never banned it in the first place (2009), nor did they ever make any proposals to ban it like China did, until now. The United States, with an annual GDP of nearly $30 trillion, while its total market capitalization has been just over $2 trillion in recent years. I wonder, what benefits has bitcoin or cryptocurrency brought to the US economy since its inception until now?
In terms of taxes, they've probably only really benefited from significant tax breaks since bitcoin ETFs were approved, and that only happened earlier this year.

For my part, I have never agreed that bitcoin is playing a major or significant role in the economy of any country, especially the major powers.

I respect your opinion, but it is not just about the market value of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, it is about other aspects that the industry brings to the country, such as crypto-related services, mining industry, mining equipment, blockchain services, etc.

All of these things, in addition to the taxes collected on individuals and companies operating in crypto, enter the economy and contribute to its growth in one way or another, it may not be large at the moment, but it is constantly growing.

In addition to an important factor, which is control, the legality of these companies in the United States allows them to keep them under their control, but banning them will lead to the loss of control from the United States.

[CryptoBuds]

If Trump wins the election, he will pay special attention to cryptocurrencies. He has already said that he will make some reforms if he wins. He will bring a big change, especially in the SEC. Gary Gensler is sure to be ousted and replaced by someone new to the crypto space. Although he did not mention the name but pointed to him. Although there is no precedent for direct firing department head of an independent federal agency, Gary Gensler could certainly step down to save his honor. But if this happens then surely a new wave will added in the crypto currency space but many believe that such political intervention on cryptocurrencies or Bitcoin will not bring long-term benefits.

I'm not sure if he will spend much time and attention on crypto but he will definitely make some changes in a more positive direction than the current administration. He and the crypto organizations must have come to some sort of agreement that they decided to side with him and as we all know, trump supporters are also crypto positive people like Elon or RFK.
On the other side of the Democratic Party, I don't see anyone openly supporting crypto like Trump, they have maintained Biden's stance of saying no to crypto throughout this campaign.

At bitcoin conference in July this year, Trump told the crowd that he would fire Gary if he were elected, and was immediately greeted with a standing ovation. Gary certainly didn't miss this news and he'll know what to do if Trump wins in November. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-07-28/donald-trump-pledges-to-fire-sec-s-gensler-make-us-crypto-capital

[Lucius]

@CryptoBuds, GG cannot be replaced by the president because his mandate lasts until 2026 (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, DDNT (Donald Do Not Trust) said something that it cannot achieve, and those who were delighted by that statement obviously have no idea about laws and politics.

[TwitchySeal]

@CryptoBuds, GG cannot be replaced by the president because his mandate lasts until 2026 (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, DDNT (Donald Do Not Trust) said something that it cannot achieve, and those who were delighted by that statement obviously have no idea about laws and politics.

I agree with you about those who were delighted being clueless, GG won't be fired on day 1 for sure (unless you count things Trump says as true because he says so).  But GG won't chair the SEC until the end of his term either.  If Trump wins, GG should resign (imo), and he probably will.  And if he doesn't - Trump will force him out one way or another.  There are a couple of ways he could legally do that - and a couple ways that aren't legal but still possible since the law doesn't matter to Trump, and when you consider Trumps plan to go full autocrat and consolidate power by stripping every independent federal agency of it's independence by removing career nonpartisans government employees and replacing them with MAGAs finest, replacing the chair of the SEC would be no big deal and the least of anyones problems.

At bitcoin conference in July this year, Trump told the crowd that he would fire Gary if he were elected, and was immediately greeted with a standing ovation. Gary certainly didn't miss this news and he'll know what to do if Trump wins in November. 

He also promised to build 10 freedom cities that will have flying cars. 

[Marvell1]

Really? Then why does it seem like every other post on this forum is somebody pumping up Trump? Why do they keep lying about the Democrats, saying they are the "enemy of crypto" when the facts simply don't support that?

The only reason I can think of is that they support the Republican political agenda, e.g. deporting 5% of US workers, getting into a trade war with China, and making abortion illegal. Since Bitcoin has done so well under Democrats, there is simply no other explanation.

Because they are Trump fans, and as with any Trump fan, they just want to show how much they adore and love and worship Trump at any place given, including bitcoins discussion section of a bitcointalk forum, thinking that would somehow help trump I suppose? It won't, but that's what a trump fan would think anyway.

In reality, crack downs on bitcoin is not a crack down on bitcoin, it's crack down on scammers in crypto space, and they are not really capable of seeing that. Yes, as a judge Kamala will keep on finding criminals and put them in jail, which she did all her life before getting into politics, so that's what she will continue to do. "cryptospace" is what they call scammers who steal money and then put to jail, and cry for help from crypto space later on, sorry I can't shed no tear for scammers.

I bet if Trump didn't mention that he supports Bitcoin, no one would care about what he does, or if Harris also expressed support for Bitcoin, I believe many people here would support her too. People only care about the future of bitcoin and they will support anyone who stands for bitcoin, not those who want to stop the growth of it.

Biden's policies are clearly putting pressure on bitcoin in particular and the industry in general, and everyone can see that. Just because you don't want Trump to win because of other issues and you are fooling yourself that the Democrats are protecting the growth of the crypto industry.

By the way, what are the benefits of admiring politicians? Like you, what do you get out of admiring Harris? None of us are Trump or Harris fans, we just want Bitcoin to grow.

[bbc.reporter]

We can be quite certain that there will be good arguments on for the people who support and for the people who are against the unrealized gains tax, however, can the people have a tax credit on unrealized losses also?

This would certainly be headshaking if a trader is taxed only on unrealized gains but he is not given tax credits on unrealized losses hehehehehee.



Appearing on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Kamala Harris’ economic advisor confirmed her plan to tax unrealized gains. Indeed, Bharat Rama from Harris’ administration spoke with the program’s hosts, arguing for the benefit of the controversial tax plan.

Source https://watcher.guru/news/kamala-harris-economic-advisor-confirms-plan-to-tax-unrealized-gains

[legiteum]

We can be quite certain that there will be good arguments on for the people who support and for the people who are against the unrealized gains tax, however, can the people have a tax credit on unrealized losses also?

This would certainly be headshaking if a trader is taxed only on unrealized gains but he is not given tax credits on unrealized losses hehehehehee.

This proposal is for people with over $100 million in assets.

Nobody repeating the freak-out about this is mentioning that. Why? Because the tiny cabal of billionaires who would actually be effected by this tax are the ones pumping millions into the media telling everybody to freak out. Twitter/X has wall-to-wall coverage of this tax, with absolutely zero of the tens of thousand of messages on there pointing out that this only impacts decibillionaires. Who owns Twitter/X again? I forget.

US billionaires pay almost no marginal taxes in the USA. People from other countries find this hard to believe, but it's true. This is Harris responding to voters--on both sides of the political divide--sick of paying more marginal taxes than billionaires do.

In the end, this controversy will be good for Harris because the Republicans are digging their own grave defending billionaires from being taxed like the rest of us are.

[Iranus]

@CryptoBuds, GG cannot be replaced by the president because his mandate lasts until 2026 (if I'm not mistaken). Therefore, DDNT (Donald Do Not Trust) said something that it cannot achieve, and those who were delighted by that statement obviously have no idea about laws and politics.

Yes, it won't be easy to fire Gary if he doesn't make any serious mistakes until his term ends. I think Trump made such a statement and his purpose was to emphasize to GG, GG will not be able to continue to suppress and put much pressure on crypto during his term and GG's political career will end when his term ends...People support that statement not because they are stupid to know nothing about US politics or laws but because people know that with Trump being elected, the days of crypto suppression will soon be over.

Do you think GG would continue to work happily if Trump were elected?

[rohang]

We can be quite certain that there will be good arguments on for the people who support and for the people who are against the unrealized gains tax, however, can the people have a tax credit on unrealized losses also?

This would certainly be headshaking if a trader is taxed only on unrealized gains but he is not given tax credits on unrealized losses hehehehehee.

This proposal is for people with over $100 million in assets.

Nobody repeating the freak-out about this is mentioning that. Why? Because the tiny cabal of billionaires who would actually be effected by this tax are the ones pumping millions into the media telling everybody to freak out. Twitter/X has wall-to-wall coverage of this tax, with absolutely zero of the tens of thousand of messages on there pointing out that this only impacts decibillionaires. Who owns Twitter/X again? I forget.

US billionaires pay almost no marginal taxes in the USA. People from other countries find this hard to believe, but it's true. This is Harris responding to voters--on both sides of the political divide--sick of paying more marginal taxes than billionaires do.

In the end, this controversy will be good for Harris because the Republicans are digging their own grave defending billionaires from being taxed like the rest of us are.

https://x.com/WalkerAmerica/status/1828860864306524653

[legiteum]

https://x.com/WalkerAmerica/status/1828860864306524653

Yep, keep fighting the tax on billionaires. A few thousand US voters who this tax will actually effect will not like it--or at least the portion of those who think that only poor people should pay taxes.

[rohang]

https://x.com/WalkerAmerica/status/1828860864306524653

Yep, keep fighting the tax on billionaires. A few thousand US voters who this tax will actually effect will not like it--or at least the portion of those who think that only poor people should pay taxes.

For sure taxes are only for poor and middle class



https://finbold.com/kamala-harris-proposes-highest-capital-gains-tax-in-over-100-years-for-stocks-and-crypto/

[legiteum]

For sure taxes are only for poor and middle class

Yep. Her tax proposals don't touch anybody making less than $400k/year and the gains tax only touches people with more than $100 million.

Before Trump, the Republicans were known as the party that was in the thrall of billionaires: for billionaires, by billionaires. Trump somehow managed to make people forget that for a while. Forcing Republicans to defend billionaires getting away with paying no taxes is a way to make them remember.

Keep digging that hole, Republicans .

[bbc.reporter]

We can be quite certain that there will be good arguments on for the people who support and for the people who are against the unrealized gains tax, however, can the people have a tax credit on unrealized losses also?

This would certainly be headshaking if a trader is taxed only on unrealized gains but he is not given tax credits on unrealized losses hehehehehee.

This proposal is for people with over $100 million in assets.

Nobody repeating the freak-out about this is mentioning that. Why? Because the tiny cabal of billionaires who would actually be effected by this tax are the ones pumping millions into the media telling everybody to freak out. Twitter/X has wall-to-wall coverage of this tax, with absolutely zero of the tens of thousand of messages on there pointing out that this only impacts decibillionaires. Who owns Twitter/X again? I forget.

US billionaires pay almost no marginal taxes in the USA. People from other countries find this hard to believe, but it's true. This is Harris responding to voters--on both sides of the political divide--sick of paying more marginal taxes than billionaires do.

In the end, this controversy will be good for Harris because the Republicans are digging their own grave defending billionaires from being taxed like the rest of us are.

It also mentioned that the investor should be 80% liquid for this unrealized tax gains rule to begin on record hehehe. This might have mixed effects, I reckon. This might force investors to buy more assets to be less than 80% liquid to escape the rule, however, this might also cause them to dump their remaining 20% to also escape being taxed by the rule.

Also, the question is not answered. If an investor is 80% liquid but he only has unrealized losses, will they not give the investor a tax cut?

[legiteum]

It also mentioned that the investor should be 80% liquid for this unrealized tax gains rule to begin on record hehehe. This might have mixed effects, I reckon. This might force investors to buy more assets to be less than 80% liquid to escape the rule, however, this might also cause them to dump their remaining 20% to also escape being taxed by the rule.

Also, the question is not answered. If an investor is 80% liquid but he only has unrealized losses, will they not give the investor a tax cut?

So Harris is proposing that those with $100M in unrealized gains and $80M of that is liquid... need to pay some taxes on that.

In other words, this tax is probably targeting... about 500 Americans  .

[laijsica]

Kamala Harris, the vice president of the United States, aims to maintain the Biden administration’s stringent stance on cryptocurrency regulation.

There is nothing to worry about Kamala Harris cracking down Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies because Trump will win the election and will support our market here.

Times have changed and it seems a bit confusing. Biden was widely optimistic about Trump victory before withdrawing from the election. Later, after Kamala Harris replaced Biden from the Democratic Party, the scenario changed rapidly and according to the latest Reuters national opinion poll, Trump is 4 points behind Kamala across the country (45:41). Also, Kamala is ahead in the Fox News poll. Trump's campaign says the poll is not true at all.

[legiteum]

Times have changed and it seems a bit confusing. Biden was widely optimistic about Trump victory before withdrawing from the election. Later, after Kamala Harris replaced Biden from the Democratic Party, the scenario changed rapidly and according to the latest Reuters national opinion poll, Trump is 4 points behind Kamala across the country (45:41). Also, Kamala is ahead in the Fox News poll. Trump's campaign says the poll is not true at all.

That's what happens when all the Republicans can come up with is absolutely mindless slurs like, "Communism!". People who call her that don't even know what the word means.