For most people the ownership considerations are directly related to the best tax outcomes. I think people need to consider the longer term implications of the tax deductions, most people tend to focus on the short term implications.
Short term:
If the property is negative geared, then usually the greatest benefit occurs when the property is owned by the highest income earner because they get the most tax deductions. I see a lot of people who purchase property this way because they want the most back in their tax returns.
Medium term:
Often properties don't remain negative geared indefinitely. Over time the rents increase and the properties become positively geared. The cash flow is eventually in surplus and tax has to be paid on that surplus. In this case, the person with the lower income would be better suited to owning the property as they'd pay less tax, possibly none at all.
Long term:
Thirdly there's the really long term scenario where you both own the property into retirement and are living off the income. Neither person is working at that point so ownership of 50/50 would distribute the income and probably have the most efficient tax outcome.
Ownership structure also comes into the tax considerations. Despite there being 50% CGT discounts after 12 months, owning in the low income earners name is probably going to have the best CGT outcome (unless you make a loss).
There's no perfect solution. Ideally you'd make decisions about what you'll do with this property (would you hold it for 5 years or 50 years), accurately predict the capital growth and future tax laws and plan for the best outcome. You'd also know what your future investment strategy would be and factor in events like loan increases and future purchases.
Super long term:
Consider buying in a trust. Nobody gets the negative gearing benefits, these are contained within the trust until the property is positive cash geared. At that point, profits can be distributed to the beneficiaries with the lowest income and this can be updated as circumstances change. No short term benefits but the long term flexibility is often the most superior of all of them options.
People should seek advice from their accountant on these various scenarios, but people also need to consider the bigger picture and ask the right questions. In the absence of any alternatives, most people (and accountants) simply focus on the short term implications of negative gearing. This can be very costly later in life.