negative gearing, page-4

I posted this previously. I find a lot of people who are against negative gearing don't actually understand it:

The anti (-) gearing brigade fails to recognise the wider consequences of disallowing the concept. If you invest in an income generating asset (essentially a business enterprise) by borrowing funds, the cost of those funds are tax deductible.

All manner of Business's (-) gear.

Manufacturers are big (-) gearers as they borrow heavily at the beginning of their life-cycles to buy expensive machinery. When they pay down the debt of the machinery they become (+) geared.

Share Market speculators (-) gear. When they pay down the debt leveraged against their shares they become (+) geared.

If I own a rental property I spend interest, rates, R&M for $20,000.

I earn $15000 rent.

Therefore I am ($5,000) tax deductible net position. However when I pay down the debt I become (+) geared.

You mess with this concept, and you have far reaching consequences.

Why should business's, sharemarket speculators be allowed to do it, but real estate investors cannot?

Hyposcrisy at its finest.

Evverything in this world is a commodity my friend, including realestate/land. You cannot simply have one rule for some commodity's and another rule for others.

Why not disallow all negative gearing, destroy capitalistic incentive and re-distribute wealth to the masses?

OO wait I think they already tried that one before...lol