What your link is getting at is if you increase the tax on property&#x2F;land value, it <i>instantaneously</i> reduces property values to account for the net present value of the future tax payments. So passing it is one-time very bad for current property owners.<p>Because the housing market is extremely efficient. Rents are essentially property value * current interest rate + taxes + property maintenance costs. But rents are also set from the other side by what renters can afford to pay. So if you increase the tax, the <i>property value</i> goes down to compensate. Anyone who buys the property after the tax is already in place is unaffected.<p>So there are two ways of looking at it. One is the renter pays the tax (i.e. the formula for rent has &quot;the entire amount of taxes on the property&quot; as a component) and the other is the tax is paid entirely by whoever owned the property when the tax was enacted, via a large reduction in property value. It depends which point in time you&#x27;re looking at it, the moment when the tax is enacted or rent paid by tenants in the future as a percentage of then-present property values.<p>But in any case the tax <i>isn&#x27;t</i> paid by speculators who didn&#x27;t already own the property in year zero of the tax being enacted.