I'd be careful about drawing the conclusion about rent shifting on that paper you linked, which really just says Carroll and Yinger's 1994 paper was right. Carr

I'd be careful about drawing the conclusion about rent shifting on that paper you linked, which really just says Carroll and Yinger's 1994 paper was right. Carroll and Yinger's paper is not unchallenged in economics (there are so very, very many papers on the problem), and it's entire line of reasoning is basically: 1. Property owners make a lot of money and own a lot of property. 2. When you increase property taxes, people who own a lot of property pay a majority of that increase. 3. Rent prices don't immediately increase 1:1 when property taxes rise, based on one data set. Basically, property taxes are mostly paid by people who own property. Most property is lived in by the owner. So property taxes aren't regressive, since rich people end up paying the majority share. People have been trying to create a model for the impact of rent shifting since the 60s. No one has a good model yet. It's hard to model. If I sign a lease for 2000/mo, and the state increases property tax on the owner, the owner can't immediately increase my rent. Rents increases are generally governed by local laws. But over time, they can raise it, and it can be reset when the current occupants leave. So an owner's profit margin takes a hit when property taxes rise, and renters bare a smaller percent of the burden of the new tax than the absolute amount raised in the short term. Long term, renter's are still covering the owner's total cost of that property, otherwise the owner would be losing money on the property – which, if that were prevalent business practice, we wouldn't have that many landlords. So yes, renter's pay property tax.