£7k / month is plenty to live on in SE (and a lot more than lots of people have) but I can easily see how it runs out if you have 4 kids, rent a big house and pay for private education etc.
However, Shona Sibary made the decision to have 4 kids (I assume) and she made the choice to educate some of them privately so if she is short of money at the end of the month that is her responsibility and I do not see why the taxpayer should bail her and people like her out. I would much rather my taxes are going towards child benefit for people who actually need it to feed and clothe their kids. If you can afford to educate your kids privately then you do not need taxpayers money, IMO.
Anyway, private education is hardly essential (I went to a rubbish state school and still got straight As and now have a great job and am well rounded) so perhaps Shona should put her kids into state school to save money. Also she should have thought about her finances more before having 4 kids. If you can't afford 4 kids, why not just stop at 2 or 3?
Oh and for the record, not all poor people are poor because they are lazy - some poor people I know work really really hard but just don't happen to have well paid jobs through no fault of their own (not everyone is fortunate enough to get paid ££££ for writing in the Daily Mail). I would much rather such less fortunate people get my taxes.
Also from reading some of Shona's previous articles, sounds like her and her DH have made pretty bad finacial decisions in the past (I recall one article where she said they remortgaged their house so many times (to pay for school fees no less!) that they had to sell and now have to rent for ££££ each month.
However I do think its unfair that a family where one parent earns £60k will lose their Child benefit, whereas a family where both parents earn £49k will not lose it, even though they are better off.