In many cases, this is quite intentional. When VAT is applied to goods or services, the tax is charged on the person providing those goods or services, but everybody expects that he will recover that cost by charging more. When taxes are imposed on drink or tobacco or petrol, or on goods imported from a foreign country, those taxes are automatically reflected in higher prices to the consumer.
To a considerable extent, direct' taxes are passed on as well. If income tax is increased, workers who are required to pay the extra tax soon demand more money from their employers in order to maintain their previous standard of living. The employer usually has to comply but he, in his turn, will usually increase the price of goods or services which he supplies.
The unimproved value can easily be assessed either as an annual rental value or as the prospective sale price (capitalised rent). This value is not created by the land-owner and can be collected by an annual land value tax (LVT) based on the rent it would command.
The other has a shop in the High Street where land values are high, and therefore his LVT is high. If the second shopkeeper tried to raise his prices to pay the LVT, his customers would go to the side street shop instead of his. The reason shop-keepers seek High Street sites is not that they expect to be able to charge more for their goods, but that they expect to sell more of them.
The tenant already pays as much rent as the land-owner can make him pay. If the land-owner tries to charge him any more, to pay the tax, the tenant will either move to a different land-owner where the rent is lower, buy a freehold farm, or go out of business. The land-owner knows this, and it is that knowledge which determines the rent. So the rent cannot be increased, and the land-owner must pay the tax himself.
This difference goes a long way towards explaining the different behaviour of land and other things in response to taxation. If, for example, more tax is put on tobacco, some people will probably reduce their consumption of tobacco, which will lead to a reduction in the amount of tobacco produced in the future. Alternatively, smokers may decide to smoke as much as before but to reduce their consumption of something else - which will reduce the demand for that other commodity, and therefore the amount of it which will be produced. Conversely, a reduction in taxation is likely to produce an increased supply. The same thing is not true of land, because the supply cannot be altered.
Another relevant factor is that most taxes impose the same burden everywhere in the country. If cars, computers or cabbages are taxed, there will be no local differences in how much the taxpayer will be required to pay. With land, however, there will be very big differences because different sites are of such widely different value. People producing from cheap, lightly-taxed land, will be in competition with people producing from expensive, heavily-taxed, land.
In most cases, however, taxes on commodities are not imposed with any object of discouraging production or sales, but in order to collect revenue. The effect of discouraging sales is an unintended by-product of the tax. Similarly, direct taxes, like income tax and corporation tax, are not designed to raise prices of goods, although in practice they do. Nearly all existing taxes are, to a greater or lesser extent, brakes on production, largely because they are passed on. They also produce all kinds of indirect results which were unintended and often unforeseen.
By contrast, LVT in no way discourages production. Far from reducing the amount of land available, it actually tends to increase it, for people owning idle land are encouraged either to bring it into use themselves or to dispose of it to someone who will. So the results of a tax on land values are intended results, while the results of most other taxes are largely unintended.
Furthermore, LVT is a just tax. Taxes on goods, and direct taxes as well, are taxes which fall on something which the producer has done or made with his own efforts, or which the consumer requires in payment for the effort which he has made. A tax on land values, by contrast, falls exclusively on something from which the owner derives benefit, yet which neither he nor his predecessors in title have ever made. What could be fairer than that?
 Principles of Political Economy S.2, Ch.3, Bk.5