There are still important second order effects. Making those the responsibility of the renter makes it harder to comparison shop (remember what it used to be like buying plane tickets when everybody just showed the base fare?) and it means the renter bears the risk of any sudden increase in those costs.

That is the downside. The upside is renters have better insight into how voting to raise/lower taxes will affect their rent. In the US that is all rolled into rent, and as a result renters happily vote to raise the taxes in the area they live without realizing that it will come back in rent increases eventually. (though there is some time lag as other economic factors affect how much rent can be raised)

Seems like you could have the best of both worlds by making it the landlord’s responsibility and requiring them to itemize it for the renter.

Also, what happens when a property is vacant? Do taxes revert to the owner, or do they not get paid?

In the UK, yes. The owner is responsible for council tax when a property is empty. This varies across the country, it could be totally zero rated when the property is empty and unfurnished, or it could be that you have to pay entirely. Where I live, landlords can get one month free in any 12 month period for empty (no residents) and unfurnished (except for white goods) properties.

Not all taxes can be passed on. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

(Basically, a landlord bears the economic burden of a land value tax.)

From your own article:

"However, some economists think that the worker bears almost the entire burden of the tax because the employer passes the tax on in the form of lower wages. The tax incidence is thus said to fall on the employee."

This is much closer to reality than the contrary