No, he has to earn a return by production.In theory, the amount passed on to the tenant should enable the landowner to earn the prevailing real interest rate in the market's structure of production.
But with full rent recovery, the land is acquired for free, so his return is also zero.As I tried to explain in above paragraph, landowners earn and keep all surplus income on capital assets above and beyond the required uses imposed by LVT, but as for the land itself, assuming they are an average entrepreneur, their income and capital gains from pure ownership of the land will equal the prevailing real interest rate found in the rest of the structure of production.
I suggest you define exactly what you mean by the landowner passing on the land tax to tenants.So you see this is different than the view that the owner alone bears the tax and accrues no profits from owning land! Instead I say he will earn no excess profits above the prevailing market rate of interest in the structure of production.
Owning land is pure parasitism. "Managing" it is vacuous: nature maintains it in its natural state without assistance, and the market decides the best use for it; then it's just a matter of accepting the high bid. Using it is the part that is essential to production.Owning and managing land is, after all, an essential function in the structure of production.
It's a flat-out lie.As for calling it theft, I think that is unfair.
Right: that's what the landowner does.This is not an uncompensated taking of land.
And lots of people had sentimental attachments to their slaves. So?I respect that people have sentimental attachment to land in some cases were born there and inherited.