As do I sire, as do I

But I don't either believe one should be obliged to know the ins and outs of every tax jurisdiction prior to being free to post 'grand political or economic theories'.

I understand that both business and residential rates in the UK are paid by occupiers not landowners.  What I would question is your classifying the uk system as 'land tax'.   I know Scotland and Wales have variations on the system but as far as I understand it neither domestic nor business rates are based on land values but on rateable values for business premises and on 'Council Tax Banding' for residential.  The latter, based on 1991 values fails dismally to reflect the increased polarity between land value in prosperous and impoverished regions.  Business tax at least is more current but still includes the value of the building itself.  Neither tax is payable on vacant building land.  In my eyes it would take some stretch to classify either as 'land tax'.

Although not impossible (which I suppose my wording incorrectly implied) I can not see any organisation putting a land tax system in place without at least having enough of an understanding (and, as you suggest, doing enough research) to know it can only work if it is the land owner that pays.  What's more, because rental values are determined by demand and are independent of the cost of supply then these charges can not be passed on to the tenant so not even indirectly does the tenant pay.*

As it happens I wrote a blog about Land Tax this morning.

No hard feelings.  I wrote as I did for clarification rather than as criticism/correction.

* The tenant would likely eventually end up paying more but only because another consequence of Land Value Tax is that other forms of taxation are reduced/abolished meaning more money is available meaning the competition for the same rental units is increased resulting in landlords being able to raise rent.