Land tax would probably not be passed onto tennants in toto. But some fraction might well be, and the arguments for it being very small are unrealistic.

The following statement seems reasonable : "LVT would not be passed in its entirety onto tennants, but the overall positive effects elsewhere would more than compensate for any increase".

According to Geonomics, if we tax land value, and the landlords try to put up rent, the tennants will move to a cheaper location, and so landlords are obliged to keep the rent at its original value.

There are two important economic principles at work here. A competitive equilibrium, and a continuous reshuffling of values which takes place all the way to end of the curve representing available accomodation.

But, look at this from the bottom up. At the bottom, landlords will be levied a small LVT, and they will increase their rents by a small amount. Because these people are at the bottom of the market, the option of moving to another city or the country does not really exist. So they will bear it. Being a small absolute increase, it will be easier to bear.

At the next level up, people might be tempted to go into accomodation at the lowest level. But that has not been vacated naturally, and so they would compete for that lowest level accomodation, forcing the price up. At the end of the day, the difference will probably be so small that they stay where they are.

An so on up the chain to the most expensive housing.

In the Geonomic view, the available housing drops down a continuous scale till it reaches land whose value is zero, where the LVT on this land is zero.

This is not true in reality. The bottom end of the market is represented by land with a non-zero value, and a non-zero LVT. The people at this end of the market do not have choices. Things at this point are different to the economic ideal.

There is a real bottom end to the market, a discontinuity, and people cannot reorganise themselves all the way down the curve.

Over a limited range, the idea of supply and demand curves does work. Put the price up and fewer people will buy it. And vice versa. But to imagine these curves go either go on "forever" or meet the x axis at some point, where the behaviour at this point can influence what's going on at the midpoint of these curves - well, that's just drawing too long a bow.

There will be "feedback". In order for the market to know there has been a change, things must change. Rent charged to tennants will go up. It should not go up to the full value of the LVT, because of "slack" in the system. Howewer, there will be an upwards component.

One effect which is possible is a lowering in rent resulting from more available land as LVT prevents speculator holding land idle. In particular, when LVT is first introduced, we would expect a lot of previously idle land to enter the housing market. However, it is also possible people will "dump" their land making land value plummet, while the value of improvements goes up. The rent paid by a tennant is a function of the value of both the land and improvements, so what the total rent paid by tennants ends up being is not obvious, but there would probably be a drop.

In the long term, there would probably be a positive effect on the economy. Its reasonable to expect LVT would be a disincentive for speculation.