Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 231 posts

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#31

Post by charlesdm »

__warlord__ wrote: post #19
josephagoss wrote: post #16

Edit: ok not 100% sure of the solution, but I think that there should be a way for the government to stop people putting their life savings into Bitcoin.

This, in fact, goes against what Cryptocurrencies represent and what scares me the most is that people, in this case governments, are trying to regulate the new with the old. Remember, innovation always win.

None of the proposed laws are unreasonable though. Anyone who thinks no regulation is coming to this space is delusional. Regulation is good. KYC and AML policies are good. That means regulators are taking proactive steps to keep these currencies in the system, rather than banning them.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#32

Post by exelius »

dmichulke wrote: post #25
TeMPOraL wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a) this debt at least pretends to pay for the comforts of their lives like infrastructure, security - and in some countries - education and healthcare; and b) national debt does not work the same way a private individual's debt works.

a)So taking on debt pretending to do something good is fine? What if I say they do something bad with that debt too, is it still OK? b) Interest rates are being paid for decades via taxes, money that could have been put to use much better. I'd say it's similar enough and don't think "it works differently" is an argument here

It works differently because the US can just issue more currency to pay off debt. Honestly sovereign debt is a currency manipulation / money supply tool more than anything.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#34

Post by pc86 »

dmichulke wrote: post #11
JetSpiegel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If non-professional investors start putting their life savings into Bitcoin and it crashes, the government can't just say "though break, you will starve on retirement"

Why can't they? Surely they can indebt every person with accumulating govt deficits (currently 62k in the US) so what's different? https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt

What does per capita public debt have to do with someone losing their life savings?

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#35

Post by pedrocr »

Agebor wrote: post #22
indubitable wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be enormously speculative and consider what might happen if cryptocurrencies do not collapse. The implications of this are interesting. They would end up being a worldwide asset that hedges against pretty much everything except worldwide economic collapse. That's sounding like the makings of the next reserve currency. What would be the implications of this for nations that currently benefit from the current wor…

It's not that speculative on the long term IMO. In the 80s and 90s, we found a way of connecting many computers together and here we are. Now we found a way to create programmable: trust, value, scarcity and incentives. If that's not going to change the society over the next 20-30 years, I don't know what will. Only land ownership could remain in the space of interest of governments then (being immovable).

>Now we found a way to create programmable: trust, value, scarcity and incentives.

I've seen variations of this argument repeated often. It sounds sexy but then when you probe it's hard to nail down something big enough we can't currently do that becomes possible. Financial markets are already very sophisticated and if anything retail investors are still not using the great products out there as much as they should (index funds are huge and yet most people still prepare very poorly for retirement). Maybe it's just a case of we still not knowing the actual killer app of crypto currencies and contracts and this is just like connected networks in the 70s. Or maybe this is like the segway and smart people are convinced it will revolutionize things but in the end it's just handwaving.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#36

Post by RobertoG »

indubitable wrote: post #14
smaili wrote: post #8

> Australia’s central bank governor Philip Lowe warned on Wednesday the fascination with the assets felt like a “speculative mania.” Just curious, what is it about speculation that has govs so worried? It’s quite clear at this point Bitcoin has grown far too large and most are now speculating on its value as a store so what benefit is there to step in, attempt to regulate it, and risk its undoing? To me, I’m reminded…

Let's be enormously speculative and consider what might happen if cryptocurrencies do not collapse. The implications of this are interesting. They would end up being a worldwide asset that hedges against pretty much everything except worldwide economic collapse. That's sounding like the makings of the next reserve currency. What would be the implications of this for nations that currently benefit from the current wor…

National currencies are not really in risk.

Suppose that bitcoin or similar are used as currency in practice (that it's very far of happening, by the way). Even if you are able to do all your operations in a cryptocurrency, you will need to pay taxes. Governments only accept their own currency, so, you need to get it to pay taxes, so, demand of national currency is going to exist always.

>> "economic vessels like national bonds and other treasuries that nations rely on to borrow money?"

This is only an institutional arrangement. Nations with their currency don't really need markets to get money. For instance, in the case of USA, the FED can produce so much money as they think is appropriate (1).

I think that cryptocurrency fans suffer from that old illusion that economy can be separated from politics.

(1).- Video of Greenspan explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#38

Post by BoorishBears »

slowmotiony wrote: post #28
chii wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but people don't usually put their entire life savings into lottery. but may be they could with Bitcoins...

I don't understand your point at all, what is stopping me from using my life savings on lottery?

You don't understand the point, or you don't agree?

Because to me it should be easy to understand that Lottery isn't marketed/treated as an investment (crypto has started to be legitimately treated as such), and historical returns don't suggest it would work.

Crypto is just attractive enough it could pull the wrong type of attention from everyday people acting as investors.

I don't agree with direct regulation, but I can definitely see why the government would be worried.

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#39

Post by dqpb »

kgwgk wrote: post #26
eksemplar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is changing the world. I've made money off of bitcoin, but I've done so responsibly, like I suspect must people on HN have, by only betting what I could easily afford to lose. By going mainstream that sort of reasonable/safe approach has ended, and people are now happily risking their entire savings. This will certainly be great for some people, but it also has the potential to be absolutely devastating. In Am…

Nothing of value is being created, at least not of the magnitude of the apparent “value” of the bubble, so making money off bitcoin is by definition getting money from someone else. Clearly it cannot work forever, and those who are left holding the bag won’t be happy.

For an “infrastructure” that burns dozens of terawatts of power per year I would at least expect fast transactions, and yet...

Re: South Korea considers cryptocurrency tax

#40

Post by dmichulke »

pc86 wrote: post #34
dmichulke wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they? Surely they can indebt every person with accumulating govt deficits (currently 62k in the US) so what's different? https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt

What does per capita public debt have to do with someone losing their life savings?

It's inconsistent that the govt "saves" you from losing your life savings yet indebts you with a nontrivial amount plus lifelong interest rate payments.

Put as question: how much would you like legally binding financial advice by someone up to their ears in debt?

Post reply on HN