Raider, If Burey gets up I would happily pay my full share of...

Raider, If Burey gets up I would happily pay my full share of tax on the capital gains too!

Is negative gearing not rewarding work? It's open to everyone, however that's not to say that everyone has the ability to negatively gear.

Tax is what gives a nation's currency value. If a government did not tax, other mediums could be used to purchase goods and services. Tax gives a currency value because you need to pay tax, I need to pay tax, the supermarket where I shop has to pay tax, their suppliers pay tax, their intermediaries pay tax etc etc and on it goes. Taxes should be used to change behaviours, not to increase government expenditure. Some taxation policies that don't generate much revenue are actually reflecting a positive outcome. An increase in the tobacco tax for example. If the tobacco tax didn't end up generating much revenue, that must be a good thing as it shows a decrease in the purchase of tobacco related items. The mining tax and the carbon taxes didn't generate much revenue, which means that they obviously had an effect, but at what cost?
Saul Eslake has pointed out that a mother returning to work pays a higher rate of tax by comparison. This just shows that someone that can negatively gear is better off than someone that doesn't (or can't). It doesn't mean that the mother returning to work is actually doing themselves a disservice by doing so. Labour's policy does not actually increase the wages for returning mothers or younger and older people looking for work to compensate for this anyway.
The current government's policies are designed to increase (and I am sick of hearing it) jobs and growth. From an economic perspective, they should do just that. Particularly with interest rates so low. As unemployment drops, wages become higher as labour is more scarce. There will always be those that are unemployed or underemployed unless the government adopts a job-guarantee approach (modern monetary theory economics). Neither Keynes's demand side policies (fiscal policies) nor neo-classical supply side policies lead to full employment in the long or short run, and even if they did, it would be unsustainable. Either approach can lead to a decrease in unemployment figures, but both have different ramifications. Keynes believed that unemployment was a reflection of the government's lack of spending. Neo-classical economists believe that unemployment is due to economic and market imperfections such as unions pushing for higher wages (making a business unsustainable) and the introduction of a minimum wage.
At the end of the day, it just depends on which side of the fence you sit on. I know which side of the fence you sit on Raider, and that is absolutely fine with me. For me, I just like to be in charge of my own destiny (not that you don't) and I believe that the less the government intervenes, the better. But, like I say, that's just me!

By the way, you haven't put in for closest to the pin on the BYR thread!

Disclosure: I own the stock I have mentioned.