It appears you are unable to comprehend (or is it lack of compassion?), the research findings of the academic who has identified a specific cohort of elderly, single women who will, indeed, by severely financially hurt should this poorly designed policy idea of Bill Shorten should ever get up in its currently proposed form.
The fact is, you have a bee in your bonnet, as we old ladies would say.
Do I think there are those of us who have had it too good for too long. Yes. I have never argued otherwise. However, it was never a "rort" as it was a legally implemented part of our taxation. These days the ATO knows what each person's dividends are, the amount of franking credits, etc and when completing one's taxation these numbers get automatically filled in to our tax returns. We have no choice. These figures are back-filled into our returns. So the use of the word "rort" is simply silly!!!
I am sorry that you are unable to debate an issue without undue emotion. Despite being female, I am more logical than you and certainly relate to the facts provided by that academic. They are worth consideration, imho. Thus, as someone who has had much experience in academic research myself, I need to put you on ignore because you would fail Logic 101. I passed that subject myself and not these days all that tolerant of those who don't have much by way of comprehension levels. Farewell.
