The tenant, as the one "consuming" the land for that term is the one who ought to pay the tax for the value of the land. It's only when the land is unoccupied that the owner/landlord will pay (which is also perfectly fair).
With apologies to Henry Ford: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford122318....
You don't know how prices are set.
We just had this in the UK. The government put up costs for landlords who all said rents would rise. They fell because people have less money due to inflation in other cost areas.
http://www.wealthandwant.com/HG/why_the_landowner_cannot_shi...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val...
Friedman prefers it:
It would seem strange indeed that the user would pay the tax if they owned the house, but would avoid entirely the effect of the tax if they rented the property and the landlord would pay the tax entirely, passing along none of it to the tenant.
I have serious doubts that either of us will convince the other on this topic. With that, I wish you well and if you wish to never own property, may you entirely avoid the effects of land value taxes.
Parasites need land value taxing.