Should Govt Treat Bitcoin as Property, Currency, or Something New.

[SuperBitMan]

Topic: Should Government Treat Bitcoin as Property, Currency, or Something entirely New

15 years after the creation of Bitcoin different government around the world still don’t agree on the fundamental question which is “what exactly is Bitcoin from a legal perspective?”

Different countries treat it as they want, some treat and see it as a property, some treat and see it as a financial asset, some treat and see it as currency for a particular purpose, while some have decided to treat and see it as legal tender.
There’s no universal legal definition and this has created uncertainty for people.

One thing we need to understand is that how Bitcoin is classified affects taxation, inheritance, consumer protection, regulation, reporting requirements, and even individual freedoms.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Property.

Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as property rather than money.
Under this approach:
1. Buying or having Bitcoin is seen as having an asset.
2. Selling bitcoin or using bitcoin to buy something can result to tax paying.
3. Just like other properties, bitcoin can be inherited, gifted and can also be seized by the government just like other properties.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Currency.
Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as currency.
Under this Approach:
1. Bitcoin is used to transfer value.
2. Bitcoin is seen as money between investors or holders.
3. People usually use bitcoin to save and spend just like money.
4. Government may find it very difficult to enforcement Tax.

The Case for Creating an Entirely New Legal Category.
 Now it is true that bitcoin differs from both traditional property and traditional currency.

Unlike property:
Anyone can transfer bitcoin globally just within few minutes.
Bitcoin is highly liquid which means it can be converted into cash relatively quickly when needed.
Bitcoin is divisible into very small units making it very easy for someone to buy.

Unlike government issued currency:
Nothing like central issuer exists in bitcoin.
government those not control supply.
No central authority can reverse transactions whenever a transaction is made.

Because of these unique characteristics, some argue that Bitcoin deserves its own legal category, so what do you think bitcointalk forum members.

Let’s discuss.

[Findingnemo]

The ideal thing would be treating it as currency just the same way as paper money because there will be no tax for bitcoin but it will be the same usual income tax based on how much we earn, but for this to happen, we also must be making in bitcoin and high volatility also makes it complicated to determine how much the tax should be.

That is why government treat ias asset and we are paying the capital gains, it doesn't matter the value as long as we made profits from selling it, and the tax will be levied depending on which bracket it comes under such as short/long term and within the exception if it is under a certain limit.

[chotu1]

Bitcoin is fine without any treatment. Governments should stop treating it altogether.

[Mr.leeemzy]

Topic: Should Government Treat Bitcoin as Property, Currency, or Something entirely New

15 years after the creation of Bitcoin different government around the world still don’t agree on the fundamental question which is “what exactly is Bitcoin from a legal perspective?”

Different countries treat it as they want, some treat and see it as a property, some treat and see it as a financial asset, some treat and see it as currency for a particular purpose, while some have decided to treat and see it as legal tender.
There’s no universal legal definition and this has created uncertainty for people.

One thing we need to understand is that how Bitcoin is classified affects taxation, inheritance, consumer protection, regulation, reporting requirements, and even individual freedoms.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Property.

Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as property rather than money.
Under this approach:
1. Buying or having Bitcoin is seen as having an asset.
2. Selling bitcoin or using bitcoin to buy something can result to tax paying.
3. Just like other properties, bitcoin can be inherited, gifted and can also be seized by the government just like other properties.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Currency.
Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as currency.
Under this Approach:
1. Bitcoin is used to transfer value.
2. Bitcoin is seen as money between investors or holders.
3. People usually use bitcoin to save and spend just like money.
4. Government may find it very difficult to enforcement Tax.

The Case for Creating an Entirely New Legal Category.
 Now it is true that bitcoin differs from both traditional property and traditional currency.

Unlike property:
Anyone can transfer bitcoin globally just within few minutes.
Bitcoin is highly liquid which means it can be converted into cash relatively quickly when needed.
Bitcoin is divisible into very small units making it very easy for someone to buy.

Unlike government issued currency:
Nothing like central issuer exists in bitcoin.
government those not control supply.
No central authority can reverse transactions whenever a transaction is made.

Because of these unique characteristics, some argue that Bitcoin deserves its own legal category, so what do you think bitcointalk forum members.

Let’s discuss.

Treating Bitcoin as a currency is a very bad idea because on like paper money Bitcoin can vanish into the thin air and also someone can easily be scammed with Bitcoin, and also before someone should go into Bitcoin the person must have learnt many things about it to be able to manage Bitcoin.
While in the aspect of treating Bitcoin as a property it's also not advisable to do that because with someone that vent into property business more than 80% of the business are always a success but seeing a Bitcoin like a property and which profit is not always guarantee it will be a loss of fund and investment if that happened

[Bitcoin-Forever]

Government may decide to take any approach on the use of Bitcoin, but we should not forget that it was not created for the government but instead that people will have an alternative to fiat.

So people may be more concerned about how they could take advantage of this decentralized digital currency and also gain their freedom and as long as it will still remain an acceptable medium of exchange and a profitable asset of an investment.

[Alphakilo]

Treating Bitcoin as something new shows how underdeveloped the government of any state is, but am sure most countries have citizens who own Bitcoin and use it whether the government approves it or not.
The best I have seen so far is that most governments can't fail to recognize Bitcoin existence even as they do so much to protect the monopoly and control of their fiat currency, but since they can't really accept it as a legal tender or currency, they classify it as property or commodity making it more of a speculative investment vehicle that can be allowed for payments of tax and remittances.

[EluguHcman]

Topic: Should Government Treat Bitcoin as Property, Currency, or Something entirely New

It does not matter how government may treat Bitcoin except to set their regulatory policies, Bitcoin remains a resistance to authorities.
There is also no other way they can treat it other than currency just as El Salvador have it as alternative means for their people to facilitate payments and services.

Of course the governments can still have it portfolio in the inclusion of their Federal reserve as some other states do already.
There is nothing other than assets or values as currency they will treat it. So nothing new to my ideal other than these I think will be valuable to foresee Bitcoin more useful.

[clarkk01]

Bitcoin is fine without any treatment. Governments should stop treating it altogether.

I agree with that, but it's important to understand how each government treats Bitcoin, because depending on the regulations, it could create legal issues for you. Whether we like it or not, governments still have control over many aspects of our lives.

[Luzin]

My country treats it as a commodity. Until now, this condition still makes me feel comfortable. The government provides good support. They offer accommodations through clear regulations for organizers and users. This condition has not had many drawbacks as long as it runs smoothly. So I think the current condition is consistent with reality. The Bitcoin system still greatly hinders the development of Bitcoin as a means of payment. 

[Uhwuchukwu53]

I see this perspective of government and individual towards Bitcoin as normal or usual way of perception considering how others valuable such as gold, silver etc which have their value is been considered, most time it's strictly on individual view of attached value that determine if the things amount to be property or asset or seen as money, Bitcoin superior standing meeting this puzzle which can be individually decided if it can be considered either of all the alpha mentioned terms. Note the ways and manner a government consider Bitcoin determine the way it's success, if Bitcoin is considered more if a currency rather others perspective as individual views it it will draw more attention of different government and authority to see it as threat and fight to subject it under control which may kill the dream, the puzzle about different view and considering it to be property, asset or money make it more undetermined by government to focus on its control.

[BitGoba]

Topic: Should Government Treat Bitcoin as Property, Currency, or Something entirely New

15 years after the creation of Bitcoin different government around the world still don’t agree on the fundamental question which is “what exactly is Bitcoin from a legal perspective?”

Different countries treat it as they want, some treat and see it as a property, some treat and see it as a financial asset, some treat and see it as currency for a particular purpose, while some have decided to treat and see it as legal tender.
There’s no universal legal definition and this has created uncertainty for people.

One thing we need to understand is that how Bitcoin is classified affects taxation, inheritance, consumer protection, regulation, reporting requirements, and even individual freedoms.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Property.

Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as property rather than money.
Under this approach:
1. Buying or having Bitcoin is seen as having an asset.
2. Selling bitcoin or using bitcoin to buy something can result to tax paying.
3. Just like other properties, bitcoin can be inherited, gifted and can also be seized by the government just like other properties.

The Case for Treating Bitcoin as Currency.
Many countries or government see and treat bitcoin as currency.
Under this Approach:
1. Bitcoin is used to transfer value.
2. Bitcoin is seen as money between investors or holders.
3. People usually use bitcoin to save and spend just like money.
4. Government may find it very difficult to enforcement Tax.

The Case for Creating an Entirely New Legal Category.
 Now it is true that bitcoin differs from both traditional property and traditional currency.

Unlike property:
Anyone can transfer bitcoin globally just within few minutes.
Bitcoin is highly liquid which means it can be converted into cash relatively quickly when needed.
Bitcoin is divisible into very small units making it very easy for someone to buy.

Unlike government issued currency:
Nothing like central issuer exists in bitcoin.
government those not control supply.
No central authority can reverse transactions whenever a transaction is made.

Because of these unique characteristics, some argue that Bitcoin deserves its own legal category, so what do you think bitcointalk forum members.

Let’s discuss.

Government was born alongside money. When people began producing more than they needed, they started trading their surplus for things they lacked. That was the beginning of money. But it was also the beginning of organized power, because a group of criminals realized they could live from other people’s labor. Instead of robbing people directly, they said: “Give us a part of your surplus, and we will leave you alone.From an economic point of view, money can be almost anything. According to the Austrian School of economics, any good or commodity can be used as money, but not every good is good money. Money must have certain qualities, known as monetary properties. The thing with the best monetary properties becomes the best money.

Do not look at what governments say. Instead, evaluate the monetary properties.

[Asuspawer09]

It's probably for good if the government is not going to do anything at all. Worst case is in terms of regulations, there are a lot of things that are happening, especially here in my country. There are a lot of complicated things that the government is doing just to make money on crypto. I guess they dont really hate crypto, but the government just see it as a huge opportunity to make money, regulating this asset.

There are a lot of cryptocurrency exchanges that is already blocked and now they are doing somekind of platform where they will allowed the popular exchange to continue operating in my country where probably it is going to have huge fees, This is just about money since they only wanted the registered platforms to only the platform to be allowed to operate promoting platforms, but personally the spread and fees was really ridiculous to the point where it is really difficult to make money in trading.

[Emjay24]

Bitcoin is fine without any treatment. Governments should stop treating it altogether.

This is more like saying the government should not allow it's usage at all within the country. You forget that bitcoin operates with real world economics. Without government treatment or regulation, issues like fraud, consumer protection and taxation would be harder to address, and you cannot stop the government from taxing it if it must be used as a currency or owned as an asset.

Furthermore, if government is not involved in its regulation, it would be hard for institutional adoption since institutions operates under government regulations.

The concern is not for government to avoid bitcoin, but for them to treat it without victimizing its holders or stifling innovation. For me, it should both be treated as a currency and an asset which it truly is.

[WatChe]

Governments all over the world are wise enough to know what exactly Bitcoin is. They have this understanding that Bitcoin is a financial system that is difficult to manipulate and this is why they are reluctant in adopting Bitcoin. As far as government treatment towards Bitcoin is concerned they are opposing it since the time Bitcoin start gaining popularity and now we seeing governments adopting Bitcoin after passing necessary regulations that allows them to have info of people using it. Bitcoin is a decentralised financial system that will exist side by side along with current financial system.     

[_act_]

Bitcoin is an asset (property), money, currency and also still fall under other categories like commodities. This shows how Satoshi is very wise.

You can only think of what government should think bitcoin should be, but the government do not care. They will only think about how to generate higher taxes from bitcoin users and where the higher taxes will come from will be where bitcoin will fall under by the government.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Bitcoin is an asset (property), money, currency and also still fall under other categories like commodities. This shows how Satoshi is very wise.

You can only think of what government should think bitcoin should be, but the government do not care. They will only think about how to generate higher taxes from bitcoin users and where the higher taxes will come from will be where bitcoin will fall under by the government.

People can have bitcoin by mining, buying or receiving salary in bitcoin, and they own as property. Governments can not ban anyone to have bitcoin but they can ban or restrict how people spend bitcoins. Fortunately in most nations globally, exchanging bitcoin is legal, and it gives people opportunities to buy and sell bitcoins without legal issues.

It's only like you said, governments want as most money as possible in tax and they have been approving more tax policies on Bitcoin community, and enforcing it more strictly with time.

[SamReomo]

I believe every government should treat Bitcoin as a currency and a payment method. Satoshi created Bitcoin as a payment system that should be free from centralized control but those days are gone now. In current times it's better to call Bitcoin as a currency because we all know it works as a currency.

However, overtime people started investing in Bitcoin and continue holding it to gain profit from it and that's why now a days we can also consider it as an asset because it goes up or down in value. Bitcoin is treated as a commodity in many countries, however in true sense Bitcoin is still an electronic currency.