[jasode]

>NY should rescind the Stock Transfer tax rebates. They are losing out on ~$16 billion in tax revenue annually.

I wasn't the one that downvoted your comment but as fyi...

Increasing taxes doesn't automatically mean government gets increased revenue because the economic actors affected can _change_ their behaviors to circumvent that tax. So NYC probably would not get $16 billion in extra revenue.

E.g. An excerpt from an article[1] about that real life game theory playing out:

>In recent weeks, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ have both discussed moving their data processing centers out of New Jersey in response to reports that New Jersey may impose a stock transfer tax. Technology has made processing trades away from New York’s physical trading floors simple, and the tax may provide incentive to shift stock transfers from one exchange to another. Nations such as Sweden and Germany experienced business relocation and diminished trading levels after enacting a stock transfer tax, subsequently leading them to repeal their taxes.

EDIT reply to : >They didn't have the political power to outright abolish it. What should happen now is that rebate should be removed.

Yes, you had already mentioned that proposal in your first message but your next message really didn't explain why stock owners and exchanges would simply pay the extra tax instead of changing their behavior to avoid the tax*.

[1] https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/opinion/opinion/dont....

[sacomo]

No worries.

The STT was first imposed in 1909. They started rebating it at 100% in the 80s. They didn't have the political power to outright abolish it. What should happen now is that rebate should be removed.

The STT is a 0.5% sales tax on the value of stock trades, 0.1% on debt and 0.005% on derivatives.

[Applejinx]

This argument (real life game theory) seems to be like:

"I'm taking this (goods, property, residence in a place) and I'm going to give you this (payment, lease, rent, tax) for it"

"Okay. As the owner, the price of (goods, property, residence in a place) is this."

"That's nice of you to think that but I'm not going to pay it. I'm giving you what I said I was going to. Maybe you should be nice, or I'll take the thing and give you even LESS for it"

I think in some contexts that's called extortion, not 'game theory'. Seems like the bottom line is the question of whether the owner of a thing has any property rights over the thing through owning it. If in practical terms they are obligated to sell at whatever terms the buyer demands, they're not much of a property owner.

[fennecfoxen]

I have tried, but I am not able to meaningfully relate the situations described in this comment to taxes on the operation of a stock exchange. Who owns the property? Who is buying and selling it? Is the property the stock exchange? Is the state the owner of something and individuals are buying it? Is the state the buyer?

[pc86]

Seconding fennecfoxen's confusion on this one.

Are the goods in this example NYSE's processing of data? Are you saying that, for example, the NYSE/NASDAQ should not be able to move data processing out of NJ in the event NJ implement a stock transfer tax?

[Chris2048]

> or I'll take the thing

How does this happen? Usually the threat is getting the "thing" from somewhere else.