PE> Rod, I changed the numbers back to the original, and then
PE> worked through them slowly, so that you could see the 1/3 vs
PE> 1/2 I was talking about originally, with the original numbers.

RS> Pity I said in the FIRST message that the Tax dept wont allow that 
RS> approach.

Pity you said in the SECOND message that I was deliberately,
dishonestly, faking the numbers.

PE> YOU'RE the one trying to smokescreen like mad, because you know
PE> damn well that the calculations I did on the original numbers were
PE> just as valid as the calculations I did on the revised numbers.

RS> Poor old Paul, you STILL havent managed to grasP that IT WONT WORK
RS> because you CANT REDUCE YOUR NORMAL INCOME TO ZERO WITH THE INTEREST
RS> PAID ON THE LOAN THAT YOU USE TO BUY THE CAPITAL GAIN ASSETS WITH.

RS> The interest can only be used in the calculation of nett capital
RS> gain, so your 1/3 and 1/2 calculations ARE TOTALLY FUCKED.

Sure, that is new information, about the treatment of non-incoming
producing shares, which I had been under a misapprehension about.

Your stupid claim about me dishonestly altering the numbers is still
just as fucked though.  Looks like you've even realised that yourself
now.  My original, based on what I thought you had told me a year or
so ago, plus assumptions on capital gain capability (which weren't
very important anyway, because the $500,000 mining stocks could be 
changed to $2,500,000 mining stocks if you want, my point was only
in how if you are planning on making a lot of capital gain, you should
deliberately force your income down, I said by buying mining shares,
but maybe buying NCP shares would be better, or BHP) calculated 
correctly.

BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---