I have reposted this earlier post of mine in this forum, as it is relevant.I hope nobody minds.

This tax grab is unfair by many standards. It is not as simple as a tax paid to people who don't pay any tax.

Firstly I am surprised by the different treatment of different income earning assets.

Example consider comparing different asset classes:

If I own property, it is my asset. It pays rent. No tax taken out - the tax payable (if any) is at the appropriate individual marginal rate. Irrelevant whether I pay tax or not. Tax payable could be zero.

If I own income bearing assets (bond, bank accounts etc). They pay interest. No tax is taken out from the income - the tax payable (if any) is at the appropriate individual marginal rate. Irrelevant whether I pay tax or not. Tax payable could be zero.

However if I own shares then part of the company belongs to me. It is my asset. They pay dividends. Tax IS taken out, before the dividend is paid at flat 30%. My company that I own is paying tax on my behalf. (Compare this to the other assets above). Now, under the policy I will be paying tax from dollar one. No tax free threshold. No lower rate for a low threshold. This is a very high average tax rate, that does not apply for example until you earn well over $230,000 in wages.

But labour will be extracting this tax rate from quite low income earners. Encourages SMSFs to invest in (for example) property and keep Labor from extracting 30% of your income.

Secondly I and surprised at the different treatment of individual taxpayers (earning the same income from the same source):

I have my retirement funds in a a SMSF = complete loss of franking credits.

I have my retirement funds in an industry fund = Retain franking credit.

It beggars belief that the same income is taxed differently if you are in a Labor supporting and donating union fund.

Thirdly

I am surprised at the profoundly retrospective nature of this and the fact that it is applied at a 100% impost from day one. 

Many retirees have genuinely set up their income to be from fully franked dividends (which may be quite meagre or close to the aged pension) only to see this reduced by 30%.

These people are likely to see this as a final straw, spend their SMSF immediately, and then go on a government guaranteed pension, with guaranteed indexing for life, rather than weather the uncertainty of the sharemarkets and the variable (and mostly falling) now fully taxed dividends.

Clearly these proposed changes don't worry you. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I'd be interested to know how you plan to fund your retirement?

Are you, for example, in a union fund, or a public servant, exempt from these changes?

I am going to retire with a SMSF in the next year or two and these changes will completely make my current retirement plans untenable.