&gt;What&#x27;s to stop land-owners who are renting their land from just increasing the rents?<p>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.<p>A good that is not fixed will tend to increase in price after a tax, because the higher costs will tend to reduce supply.<p>&gt;I can&#x27;t see that not happening, and that would have a big impact on poor renters.<p>Taxing improvements reduces the incentive to build--costs rise--which is why property taxes can be passed on to renters.<p>Because land is fixed in supply (keep quiet, Kansai International Airport!), it isn&#x27;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).<p>&gt;That would really only hit people who own their own homes<p>The tax falls on those who own land, who tend to be the wealthiest in society. Because its a tax on land <i>value</i>, those with the most valuable land pay the brunt of the tax.<p>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.<p>Someone in deep Queens would have relatively low taxes since their land is not nearly as valuable, even for the same acreage.<p>&gt;or who own land that they aren&#x27;t renting.<p>If you own land you aren&#x27;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.<p>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.