You rely very heavily on the Høj, Jørgensen, and Schou paper. The paper states clearly and convincingly that property prices adjust for changes in property tax

You rely very heavily on the Høj, Jørgensen, and Schou paper. The paper states clearly and convincingly that property prices adjust for changes in property tax rates. I don't think that's surprising to anyone. Figure 1 in the paper shows this very clearly: lower property tax rates raise property values, and vice versa. You then jump very quickly to the assumption that this means that landlords are unable to pass increased property taxes onto their tenants. The causal link is sorely lacking. "With a Land Value Tax, the owner has to pay that tax every month whether they have a tenant or not. They're already charging the highest amount the market will bear, and as we've already shown, they are unable to change the supply of land. All the leverage is on the side of the tenants, which forces the landlord to eat the tax. The price to buy the land goes down, the price for a tenant to rent it goes down, but the total amount of income the land itself produces ("land rent") stays the same. A portion of it is just being collected by the taxing agency." "Landlords are unable to change the supply of land" is, frankly, an idiotic statement, for a number of reasons. No landlord says "well, the quantity of land is fixed so I can't raise the rent now that my taxes are higher." And furthermore, while that statement is true in a very academic sense, tenants don't live on land by itself. They live on land with a building on it. There is plenty of land out there that can support new construction. The supply of land in this sense is not fixed. Provided the right incentives, nearby vacant land will be developed with new housing. And other buildings will be repurposed into housing if that's their most profitable use. Over the long run, housing supply is very elastic. People will get roommates or choose to live in RV's if the incentives are right. The iron law of supply and demand works for housing, just like cigarettes and gasoline. Landlords operate to make a profit. They look at all of their expenses when deciding what to set their rents at. They don't care if the land is taxed, or the structure is taxed. They're looking at total expenses and seeing if they can get a tenant in their property paying rent at a level that gives them some amount of profit beyond their expenses. If you make it unprofitable for them to rent, you'll go from sky high rents to no rental units available in a heartbeat. You're basically arguing for sky high property taxes, with the cherry on top being your Citizen's Dividend: "look what we could do with this new tax revenue!" That's fine, but maybe you should try owning a rental property before you make such authoritative claims with such little basis in reality.