Doctor Drivel wrote
djc wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And we KNOW that in Australia, which has had an LVT for more
than a century now, that landlords do in fact pass on the LVT,
regardless of what some stupid academic claims isnt possible.

No, that is rubbish. I currently have a house up for rent in
Ballarat and it will fetch what the market says it will fetch.
Any prospective tenant could not give a toss whether I am liable for Land Tax or not or whether my marginal rate of
tax is 15%, 30% or 40%. He will pay what the property is worth, regardless of the tax I pay.

Of course he dosn't, but you do. Unless you are very altruistic the rent at which you are willing to let that
property will take into
account your costs of ownership, which includes any tax liability.
If the market won't pay that price then you have a bad investment.

Then he sells

No one stupid enough to buy it if the LVT is the only tax in the country.

and more people become owner/occupiers.

Nope, not if the LVT is the only tax in the country.

They would in fact just do nothing and wait till all the polly stupid
enough to go that route have got lynched and replaced with pollys
with enough of a clue to return to the original tax regime where the
LVT is just one of the taxes in the country and where that does in
fact get paid by the renters, because all landlords do that so the
renters have nowhere else to go, particulary when there is a
desperate shortage of rental property.