I never did have many people email to challenge my views. I have realised that while Georgists really like to advocate to anyone within earshot, they're not looking for arguments on the web.

But, I had reason to communicate with Bryan Kavanagh in Melbourne. He made the assertion :

As to the suggestion (inference?) that taxes on land may be passed on, they simply cannot. I am a valuer, and when I am required to conduct a rental valuation of a commercial property, I study the lease to see who is responsible for rates and taxes. Is it the landlord? Is it the tenant? If the former, I compare the property with the current gross market rentals of similar properties, and assess the landlord's market rental valuation at the appropriate gross market rental, as adjusted by any other particulars concerning the term certain of the lease, etc. On the other hand, if the lease says the tenant is responsible to pay the rates and land tax, the landlord's rental is reduced by the value of rates and taxes paid by the tenant. Economists admit the fact, too, that unlike all other forms of taxation, taxes on land cannot be passed on in prices.

This assertion made me think more carefully about the issue, and I now concede it does have gross validity. It captures "95%" of the full picture - I'll agree that to the extent that land taxes can be passed on, it will only be a small proportion of the total land tax.

There are some qualifiers to the gross trend.

There is a certain rubberiness in saying that two properties are the same, and hypothecating the land value component and improvement component. Further, things have to be "in tension" for things to know what is going on - if you press something and it does not move, there are still stress gradients through it from where you press it.

Then you have the principle of how differences at this land value slide down the incline to lower land values. And how the system will respond to sudden changes.

Regardless, I think it is significant that land has a diminishing importance as a factor of production. Its value could still be going up because of the competition for land for its own sake (not as a factor of production), and false perceptions about its business importance. George may still have interesting things to say about this situation - but it is nevertheless different to the "original scenario" postulated by Georgists.

But, within limits, the assertion that land value taxation cannot be passed on has a definite truth to it.