>What's to stop land-owners who are renting their land from just increasing the rents? The supply of land is fixed is the difference. If you tax a good with fi

>What's to stop land-owners who are renting their land from just increasing the rents? The supply of land is fixed is the difference. If you tax a good with fixed supply, the price of that good will tend to decrease. A good that is not fixed will tend to increase in price after a tax, because the higher costs will tend to reduce supply. >I can't see that not happening, and that would have a big impact on poor renters. Taxing improvements reduces the incentive to build--costs rise--which is why property taxes can be passed on to renters. Because land is fixed in supply (keep quiet, Kansai International Airport!), it isn't actually possible to pass on a land value tax to renters. Land taxes actually make land cheaper to buy (though with an ongoing tax obligation). >That would really only hit people who own their own homes The tax falls on those who own land, who tend to be the wealthiest in society. Because its a tax on land value, those with the most valuable land pay the brunt of the tax. Think of Midtown Manhattan; the land owners there would pay a large proportion of the taxes in NYC since they have a comparatively large portion of the land value. Someone in deep Queens would have relatively low taxes since their land is not nearly as valuable, even for the same acreage. >or who own land that they aren't renting. If you own land you aren't renting in a high value area, yes, it punishes you for that by design. Think vacant lots in the city center. If you own such land, you are likely rich. If you are attempting to use NIMBY rules to prevent development, it will utterly destroy you. I think this is a feature, not a bug.