The poor pay less in taxes. It would not surprise me to find that if you could trace the entire effects perfectly that poor renters are net beneficiaries of the policies particularly now that the owner-occupied MID has effectively been eliminated for houses on the low end and it was previously capped on the high end already.

Now, it mostly directly benefits landlords, which I’m sure is entirely a coincidence... (Our income tax system is based on taxing income/profits, meaning that eliminating business interest, including commercial mortgages, as a deduction is incongruous and a non-starter.)

False, by the same logic of land value taxes.

The supply of land is fixed and cannot respond to changes in supply or demand. Or to changes in cost structure, including both taxes and subsidies on the land itself (excluding improvements).

Landlords eat LVT. And they pocket the mortgage subsidy. Tax codes pick and choose among taxable and exemt income and costs all the time. Your objection is patently absurd.

That seems to mismatch with fairly well-established economic doctrine, possibly to the extent of being Nobel Prize worthy if proven.

Its lack of Nobel-worthiness is based on its obviousness, not novelty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2015/04/01/why-henry...

The main sticking point is that the wealthy enjoy teir free money.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/11/10/...

I've provided you seveal refeences, please do read them. The Wikipedia article explains and diagrams the dynamic very clearly.

This thread is about the deductibility of mortgage interest for owner-occupied vs rented properties.

(current policy is that they already have that advantage over poor people)