Labor hypocricy on franking credits exposed, page-12

Whilst arriving late to this discussion I am genuinely disheartened at the poor level of understanding that some posters exhibit.  

For instance this gets a big thumbs up from some.
"A wealthy Australian with a multimillion-dollar house and a million in superannuation can draw a pension of $100,000 per year and not pay a cent in tax."
Why anyone would think that withdrawing your own (post tax) savings should attract a further tax is astounding.  Also, at the rate of $100,000 a year this person will end up on the pension in just over a decade.  Clearly the journalist does not have a clue about superannuation but certainly has an agenda.

I also note the rather flippant advice on how to solve the problem.
"So put it in a pooled fund and stop complaining."
That sounds interesting - in a retirement portfolio (using the figures above) where 50% is in term deposits and 50% in franked investments  - to avoid losing $9,000 in franking credits (assuming a 4.2% fully franked dividend yield), I could invest it in an industry or retail fund and pay 1% to 2% in fees on the capital.  Wow, that's a bargain - give up $10,000 to $20,000 in management fees to avoid losing $9,000 in franking credits.

Now let's assume that all SMSF trustees throw their hands up in despair and move the (almost) 700 billion dollars invested in SMSF's into these pooled funds.  Can you imagine the joy on the faces of those fund managers that will share in the 7 to 14 billion dollars in fees generated by Labours' policy.  Of course that means that no tax will be raised by this policy but they will spend it regardless and increase the deficit instead.  

 Any other bright ideas?