원문 보기
This is the Economy in the News segment, which we meet every Monday . The issue of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin has recently re-emerged as a global concern . The international cryptocurrency market is in turmoil following a hack worth 8 trillion won, and in Korea, the policy of collecting taxes on cryptocurrencies has once again come under fire.
Economic reporter Lee Seong-il is here. welcome . hello. We already reported on this earlier, but shall we take a look at the hacking issue first? great. It is the biggest bank robbery in human history . Even evaluations like this are coming out, aren't they ? That is correct. If you look at this hacking incident...
We can see that the exchange's security technology and tracking speed could not keep up with the hackers . Binance confirmed the hack at 11:20 PM on the 29th, and it took just one minute to withdraw $6.3 billion without authorization . The exchange formed a crisis response team and tracked the flow of stolen funds .
We even informed the stablecoin issuing society to freeze transactions, but the hackers had already siphoned off about $2.4 billion . They succeeded in switching to another coin that could not be blocked through another platform even before the trading freeze limit was reached . North Korea is being identified as the culprit behind the hacking of the world's largest exchange, an incident that has caused anxiety among virtual asset holders .
yes . It seems this incident has revealed that while it has become widespread, it is a difficult method to manage. Because it is so complex, the issue of it consuming taxpayer money is also becoming controversial. Now, in our country, starting next year, according to the law, we must pay taxes on income earned from virtual assets.
Let's assume an investor who buys an asset like Bitcoin now and sells it after January 1st of next year . Now, if you sell when the price of Bitcoin, which was about $80,000 (107 million won) last week, reaches $90,000 (120 million won), you will make a profit of about 13 million won. You have to pay 2.3 million won in taxes, which is about 22%.
However, if the price has risen above $80,000 as of December 31 of this year, the tax might be reduced a bit . Now, these provisions were included in the tax law created by the government in 2020 when the Democratic Party was in power, passed the National Assembly, and after being postponed three times, implementation is now imminent for next year.
However, the atmosphere changed last week as reports emerged that the Blue House was considering postponing the meeting . As the party begins to gather opinions in earnest, the possibility of a further postponement is being raised . yes . okay. What is the logic of the side claiming that it was a performance?
Now, equity among investors is declining. Also, practical preparations are insufficient. This is the core logic of the opposite of execution. Let's look at the issue of equity first. Investors using domestic exchanges must collect the data received from the exchange, report it to the National Tax Service, and pay taxes.
Now, the exchange provides this information to the National Tax Service as well . It is a method similar to paying capital gains tax on profits from buying overseas stocks . However, in the virtual asset industry, there are various exchanges and trading methods that cannot enforce such data . As a result, there is an argument that only exchange users will pay the taxes, and that the number of investors migrating to overseas exchanges to avoid this will increase; this is the basis for that claim.
The complex transactions unique to the virtual asset financial sector are also a headache. The method of calculating profits from buying and selling virtual assets is similar to stock trading, though . There are many transactions where it is difficult to determine whether taxes can be imposed or what the acquisition amount is, such as receiving coins from an issuer for free or receiving compensation for participating in blockchain maintenance .
As revealed in the recent hacking incident, the nature of each coin and transaction is different, making tracking more difficult, and there is also a nature where it is impossible to predict what trading trends will emerge . So, to summarize, the very act of taxing currency is a difficult task. It seems to be like that, so how are other countries handling it?
Right? Now, regarding the logic supporting the retained assets' claims, the difficulty in levying accurate taxes due to the characteristics you mentioned and complex transaction methods is not a situation unique to us. Nevertheless, many countries are imposing taxes. Although this refers to the year 2014, before virtual assets became mainstream, if you look at the data later obtained by the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service... Even at its highest, those who reported income did not reach 7% among investors who actually earned income. Now, however, about 40 countries around the world, including the UK, Japan, and Germany, already have a system for imposing taxes. The U.S. has chosen a method of first establishing the basis for imposing taxes since 2014, when the price of Bitcoin was $600 ( 1 million won), and then expanding the tax infrastructure later in line with technological advancements .
Where there is income, there must be tax. We are faithfully adhering to these principles. yes . There are only two months left until the tax collection period ends, but judging by the current atmosphere, it looks like they are planning to postpone it again. I think so . Now, if investors leave the domestic exchange, the domestic exchange will take a hit.
Also, we probably won't be able to collect as much tax as we think we will . This is due to such concerns. On the other hand, there is also an analysis that this is a fallout from the abolition of taxation on stocks, which are comparable to virtual assets, while deferring the financial investment income tax .
The virtual asset market currently has 10 million users. Daily trading also exceeds 5 trillion won. Regardless of the conclusion reached, it seems unavoidable that the government, which is reconsidering the postponement with only two months left before the enforcement of a law passed six years ago, the ruling party, which has neglected the suspension, and furthermore the National Assembly will be held accountable.
yes . Now that virtual business has become somewhat of a common practice, some predictable policies really need to be introduced . That is correct.
Comments 0