Labor hypocricy on franking credits exposed, page-17

I wonder whether ABC "Fact Check" has been asleep at the wheel because no one seems to have done a back of the napkin calculation on the motivation for Shorten & Bowen to introduce this policy.  With great hubris they announced the policy would stop the rort of some SMSF's getting cheques for $2,500,000 from the the ATO in franking credits.

Quickly reaching for a napkin and using the franked income assumptions from my previous post you would need to have a balance of over $138,000,000 in franked investments to generate that kind of a franking credit.  Add to that the cash investments to balance the fund as above and we are talking about funds with more than $277,000,000 in capital.  Now exactly how many SMSF's have that kind of balance?

Further, why has no one asked how they managed to get that amount of capital into an SMSF with an allowed maximum of only 4 members?
With reasonable benefit limits and then other contribution restrictions in place, how do you get almost $70,000,000 per member into a fund in the first place?  

So whilst these sorts of questions are not being put to Shorten & Bowen they are free to mislead and deceive with impunity. 
Maybe I should send the Liberals some napkins so they can do the calculations and counter this grossly discriminatory policy.