It is only negative gearing if you are doing it by overdraft/finance of some sort. I know its hard to believe, but there are some businesses out there that are so well run that they dont need credit to trade/survive.

SORRY, but I wish look at the topic, along with some of the responses.....

.....why is it that IF you want to get rid of POVERTY and HOMELESSNESS, that you are somehow a leftie. These lefties are it seems, ordinary people who GENUINELY CARE for their fellow human being. Again, why is that WRONG?

IN CONTRAST, it appears that NEO CONS, simply want to get recognition for providing CHARITY and get their kicks from thinking that THEY are wonderful people for providing this CHARITY to people they consider to be "losers" OR those NEO CONS who simply refuse to do anything for those in need because they consider them "losers".

ISN'T it simply BETTER to NOT need CHARITY and to FIX UP a system that allows people to live in POVERTY and HOMELESSNESS.

Tell me, my fellow NOE CONS why is this such a terrible thing.  

Mega CORPORATIONS.... let's look at the BANKING INDUSTRY..... they make BILLIONS from a closed and protected market which extracts EXORBITANT fees from ALL people and businesses world wide.  They produce nothing and add very little to a nation, except fill the pockets of the wealth elite.

WHY, couldn't a special tax be levied on BANKERS to pay for those in POVERTY and are HOMELESS.  In Australia.... this contribution would stop all POVERTY and HOMELESSNESS and even provide services to HELP those in need lift themselves and their future generations out of this situation.  They and their children would then be contributors to the nation.  

The outflow of funds from the BANKING INDUSTRY wouldn't even be noticed because these mega corporations make that much money it is OBSCENE.

So tell me NEO CONS why are people who wish to remove POVERTY and HOMELESSNESS in such a wealthy country is WRONG whereas providing NOTHING OR the wealthy NEO CONS providing CHARITY handouts, to make themselves feel good, is okay?

Saul Eslake (chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch) has suggested ending negative gearing for new investors at a given date.
I agree with that. The argument that there will be no rental properties is bull. What would happen to existing rental properties if negative gearing was abolished ? The houses will not fall over.
If investors decided to sell the properties then renters would become home owners.

In mid eighties one of Australia's most prominent treasurers and subsequently Prime Minister tried this theory and it failed, so after two years it was returned back to status quo.

Apropos

I think you will find it was a typo ?

Owner occupiers are the major beneficiaries of tax concessions on housing.

The latest tax expenditure statement costed the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) exemptions on owner-occupied housing at A$30 billion.

However the CGT main residence exemption distorts the market as owner occupiers invest more in their residence, diverting capital from other more productive investments in the expectation of tax free capital gains.

Investors also benefit from the CGT discount, but negative gearing has a more immediate benefit. Negative gearing is the product of two of the basic design principles of our tax system.

Firstly, expenses are deducted from income in calculating the income or loss from an activity, and secondly we apply a global system under which income from all sources is aggregated to determine a taxpayer’s income for a year. Therefore, in the absence of any specific restrictions, losses from one activity can be applied to reduce the tax payable on income from other sources.