> Taxes on land do not affect the supply of the land, this implies they are not passed on and the research literature largely agrees with this.

Taxes may not affect the amount of land that physically exists, but they absolutely can and do affect the amount of land available for rent as opposed to other income-generating use cases.

On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board, which is likely to just be absorbed by renters given the usually low price elasticity of demand for housing.

> On top of that, a tax that applies equivalently to all of the land available to the rental market in a given area will simply push prices upwards across the board

Most research asserts that a land value tax decreases the selling price of land.

These are assertions, not arguments. Respond to points in the post you replied to. Be sure you understand them first; your assertions do not hold in the case of LVT.

Why would a land value tax shift the allocation of land between uses? The amount of the tax doesn't depend on what the land's being used for. If renting is the highest-value use without the tax, it will still be the highest-value use with the tax.