As a female public high school teacher and an AEU member for 37 years, I experienced years of pay and super fund discrimination.

But I was brought up to be self-sufficient, to save, invest and support social welfare as a backstop.

We budgeted. That budget included a saving/investment component. We were responsible.

Reaching retirement we found some investments had worked while others flopped, but we were comfortable.

The GFC decimated our self-managed super fund but with more careful saving and investing it is back to two-thirds of its pre-GFC income.

Low interest rates decimated our cash savings and recent self-managed super fund changes further reduced income (PSS pension, rent, interest and dividends). Now Mr Shorten proposes another cut.

The Seniors Card is my one concession.

I feel criticised. I've had unfair concessions and I am "rich".

Our home is worth over $1million. But I don't think about its dollar value; it's my home, with neighbours and memories that I budget to maintain.

But it's like I've unfairly taken advantage of the encouragements that were provided to enable us to become self-sufficient.

I would rather feel a little pride for what we achieved as it wasn't easy or without sacrifice.

It would have been so easy to spend rather than budget to put something aside.

Without negative gearing and share/super fund tax benefits we would be only partly self-sufficient.

We would have a PSS pension, a top-up age pension, a health card and all the benefits.

Is this the modern goal? Spend, pay compulsory super and let government provide the rest?

Mr Shorten please stop your war on wealth.

Encourage people who save and self-fund retirement.

Please be careful what you encourage Australians to spend their money on and even more, the consequences of what you legislate for.

Marion Davidson, Canberra

Your article on the Labor Party's newly announced policy to discontinue refunding imputation tax credits ("Shorten plan angers Labor voter", CT March 15, p.18) raises some important issues.

One may have some sympathy for lower income self-funded retirees, such as Ms Osborne featured in the article, who have geared their investments to reap the benefits of this Howard era tax concession.

However, there is an inherent anomaly with the tax concession as it stands, namely that taxpayers on low incomes can claim a cash refund for a tax that someone else has paid or the low income taxpayer was not liable to pay in the first place.

Some may charitably view the concession as a form of wealth redistribution from the corporate sector to those on low incomes.

It would nevertheless be a surprise if Labor's policy predominantly affected retirees such as Ms Osborne.

Labor has clearly crunched its numbers and targeted their policy at much wealthier retirees who have minimised their taxable incomes to facilitate access to cashing in imputation tax credits from their investments.

If retirees such as Ms Osborne could be compensated for their loss of the imputation tax credit refund, as Labor leader Bill Shorten has foreshadowed, Labor's policy would go a small way to overhauling a tax system which is crying out for root and branch reform. I wish them luck.

Jonathan Hayes, Hughes

Labor's announcement on imputation credits confirms its total lack of strategic planning initiative.

The policy affects self-funded pensioners but also impacts the earning rate of all super funds under management where they generate franked dividends (and most do).

Not only are pensioners with stock investments whacked disproportionately to others (e.g. politicians on government pensions) but the decision will also impact retirement savings of workers during accumulation.

The potential is for reductions in fund earnings of up to 17.65 per cent (assuming 100 per cent vested in fully-franked entities) annually until retirement, a massive hit for existing workers.

The real problem is that superannuation pensions are untaxed.

An equitable response would be to introduce tax on pension income using a sliding scale as with income tax.

The government recently moved to limit untaxed superannuation pensions to $100,000 per annum, which was a first step.

Mr Shorten is lowering this threshold harshly and unfairly for a targeted group while also attacking workers' ability to accumulate reasonable retirement capital. Average superannuation holdings are currently barely adequate to provide decent top-ups for pensioners.

If he wants to tax the rich then tax pension income, not superannuation capital, and include himself in the list of those impacted.

Ian Shepherd, Cook

The Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, has always impressed me as having good ideas that might actually balance the Federal Budget.

Bowen clearly won the argument over negative gearing at the last election.

His latest effort regarding dividend imputation however, is an example of a good idea but poor execution.

My suggestion is that any dividends plus franking credits (which everyone must report as taxable income) up to the value of the current tax-free threshold should be excluded from the calculation of the cash refund due from the ATO.

This would mean that the mums and dads who only have a few Telstra and Commonwealth Bank shares to supplement their pensions can still rely on those franking credits as cash in the bank to balance their meagre budgets.

This modification would still reduce the cash refunds going to those who have set up investment schemes to receive massive franking credits refunds free of any tax liability.

Mr Bowen, as it stands your regressive tax proposal will cost the ALP the next election, but you can recover by showing us you are as smart as I think you are.

David McIntosh, Gordon

I am a tax agent.

On Wednesday morning, the first tax return I did was for a pensioner who had $368 of franking credits from Telstra shares, and thus entitled to a $368 refund.

He was happy until I told him that, if elected, Shorten would take that modest refund from him and he will no longer get his annual refund.

Nice one Bill!

Matthew Kelly, Dickson

Is Donald Trump imploding?

What a mess it will make.

Percival Vere, Dickson

I see from their website that the ACT Branch of the RSL won't be requiring the services of any Canberra community bands at the National Ceremony on Anzac day this year.

Apparently, some veterans have had issues with mixed tempos and audibility. Thus, we will be treated to the dulcet yet consistent tones of the Band of the Royal Military College, piped all the way down Anzac Parade via some newfangled hi-tech device known as a Delay Stack System, whatever that is.

While I have nothing but praise for the strict military musicianship of the RMC band members, I think ACT RSL president John King and his advisers are being a little precious here.

The crowds come to the Anzac parade and ceremony to honour our veterans for what they have done and been through, not to witness a precision marching display.

I couldn't care if a veteran were to march, walk, hop skip or jump their way up Anzac Parade, it is simply about being there to be honoured publicly. We really truly won't be put off if some poor veteran should slightly mis-step as they transition from Scotland the Brave played at 118 beats per minute, into Colonel Bogey played at 123. It is all part of the fun and celebration.

While he is rethinking his decision, Mr King might also consider that many community musicians offer their services to the parade as their own small personal tribute to our veterans and are understandably very frustrated by thismove.

Peter McDonald, Hughes

The RSL has flexed its muscles decreeing that community bands are no longer "permitted" to march in the Canberra Anzac Day Commemoration.

Family members are also no longer welcome.

Frankly the RSL has lost the plot. In an age of inclusiveness, it is retreating into an exclusive "club" cosy with its own existence.

Why the RSL, with its very limited membership among War Veterans and Service Personnel continues to exert ownership over a community event is a mystery.

It's time that local communities took ownership and transformed Anzac Day into something more inclusive and fitting for the whole community.

In Canberra, the event should be controlled jointly by the ACT government and the Australian War Memorial.

PJ Bewley, Vietnam Veteran, Barton

Andrew Barr's diatribe about mainstream media suggests he is an insecure man desperate for relevance.

His attempts to by-pass the mainstream media are designed to portray only good news about the ACT economy and the government's activities. He has stated that the government wants to hear directly from Canberrans and communicate directly back to them, "not through the filter of journalists".

Of course he does; it is only through the reach of the media that individuals are made aware of the machinations of his government.

His judgment is flawed at best; this is a man who has been associated with controversial government land deals at Glebe Park, the Woden Tradies car park and the CFMEU's Dickson headquarters, all exposed by Canberra Times journalists.

Andrew Barr has a clear disdain for anyone over the age of 34, notwithstanding that he is almost 45 himself. Perhaps he should be planning his retirement, now he is in the ageing demographic.

His recent comments that people who want to live in a house with a garden are hankering for the 1970s is nonsense. According to 2016 ABS statistics, 60 per cent of Canberra households comprise families with children. Does he expect them all to live in skyscrapers?

One wonders why his government has bothered to sponsor Seniors Week, given his clear distaste for anyone over 34.

He should not forget that ageing Canberrans are all voters. Bring on the election.

Rosemary Crossland, Ngunnawal

Malcolm Turnbull has stated that churches will be "harshly judged" if they do not quickly join the national redress scheme for those abused in institutions.

As far as child migrants are concerned, it is the federal government that is fundamentally responsible for the mistreatment of child migrants.

The Child Migration Scheme was a well-meaning scheme to give British children a better life in Australia.

The Australian government went to the British government and asked it to send its waifs to this country.

When the British government could not get the waifs off the streets, they went to the children's homes and plucked them out of there.

The children were then sent to children's homes that were poorly run by the churches and completely abandoned by the federal and state governments.

I know this because I am one of those children.

My message to Mr Turnbull is you need to accept the role of the governments in the disgraceful scheme before you cast aspersions on others.

What action will the government take to provide redress for child migrants?

Hugh McGowan, Holt

After a 46-minute wait on the phone to Access Canberra, still not answered, I gave up.

As sole provider of essential services they are obliged to provide good quality, reliable service.

While their website says they are "committed to delivering excellent service", it says nothing about how long it should take for a phone call to be answered; that speaks volumes.

It's not like we can take our business elsewhere.

Organising a payment plan for traffic infringements can only be done by phone.

When I called Access Canberra I wasn't advised of possible wait time or the number of calls before mine; this is standard practice for busy call centres which assists customers to decide if they want to continue holding for an operator.

If my matter isn't dealt with in a timely fashion the government will hit me with a further significant fine.

We all have to do business with Access Canberra; there is no alternative provider for their services.

Our community should expect high quality service from this provider whether by phone, online or in person.

Sue Ellerman, ACT

The politically correct elite are calling for the banning of sex-explicit salutations like Mr Mrs, Miss, Madam, Sir, Queen, King etc. Would the elite please inform the public what gender neutral salutation to use and in particular whether he she, him her and sex-explicit Christian names are to be banned?

Ed Dobson, Hughes

CELEBRATING HISTORY

Your report "Laps of Honour" (March 13, p.1) on the unveiling of the restored Honour Roll at Manuka Pool on Canberra Day was a moving event and a celebration of one of Canberra's history stories.

One may hope that Mr Barr relented on his dislike of journalism, read the account and appreciated the decision his government made not to redevelop Manuka Oval with its negative impact on Manuka Pool and its surrounding areas.

Auriol Weigold, Kingston

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS

MLA Meegan Fitzharris seems more than happy to accommodate interacting with media, even though taking on the "poisoned chalice" as minister for everything transport in this Territory. She worked for Chief Minister Barr, and ran unsuccessfully for Katy Gallagher's vacated seat when the latter went to the Senate.

Time to throw your hat into ring now Meegan. Change is good, arrogance isn't!

Greg Simmons, Lyons

GEESE ON A WALL

According to the Attorney General, Matt Canavan was the exception as to his outcome in the section 44 debacle he being LNP and all. However Katy Gallagher, she of the ALP, is the rule. I would have thought what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

Jan Gulliver, Lyneham

ELECTORAL OUTCOMES

Seeing what happened in the ACT, Tasmanian and South Australian elections, it seems like pokies, clubs and the AHA are to Australia what guns and the NRA are to the USA.

Keith Hill, Kaleen

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).