A welfare state, once installed, is actually very stable with regard to revolts. I know of no movement which would advocate removal of the welfare state that had but a tiny followership. There are movements with some influence that want to abolish certain programs or just generally lower taxes, but even in those cases, a revolt is not in sight. They can be happy if they get to some political influence at all.
The reason for this is that the policy of well developed welfare states is a continued stream of compromises. For example, if there is a proposal to give unto group A, there will be complaints from group B and in effect group B gets some compensation. After several years of such a policy, the way taxed money takes from tax payer to the pockets of welfare receivers is totally obscured. Everybody has some claim on money from the state. And thus, the name "welfare" becomes more and more a misnomer.
When we look at a very well developed welfare state, like Germany, we'll find that dozens of programmes exist, but they are by no means only directed towards the poorest, the ones that cannot make a living on their own. To be sure, the very poor do actually receive welfare. But the lions share goes to programmes that actually include and benefit everyone. For example: Kindergeld (monthly payments for each kid, until the kid has finished an education), tax subsidies for this and that, pensions, free (as in beer) education, and so on.
The german system rests not only on hefty taxation but also on mandatory payments. For instance, health insurance, pension insurance, insurance for the case that one gets in need of permanent care (all those insurances are "public", i.e. politics says how much you have to pay, and what you get out), a duty for getting public Radio & Television running, and so on.
Despite of this, there is not a trace of revolt. Because everyone knows (or at least believes) that he benefits from the system. For example, with a revolt the claims against the public pensions insurance would be lost. Understandably, people having such claims don't want to loose them. But since you cannot work in germany without building up such claims, almost everyone has them.
In general, it is the case that the majority depends, in some form or another, on paymenst and services provided by the government or government controlled public institutions.
So, the political struggle is not like: people, come on, we would be better off if we didn't channel all that money through a huge bureaucracy. It is rather the struggle of certain groups to get more out of the system. For example, this years election was won by a party (CDU) that proposed to pay more pension for women that gave birth to a child before 1990 so as to make their claims equal to those who gave birth after 1990, when an earlier proposal made into law then said that mothers got to get "pension points" (claims) for the time they couldn't work due to giving birth. But the earlier law did not extend to the past, it was only "from now on". OTOH, the social democratic party SPD that forms a coalition with the CDU and thus will co-govern Germany for the next 4 years proposed to pay pensions from 63 on (when before, the age was raised from 65 to 67 on demografic grounds). (Needless to say, it is known that many of the supporters and members of SPD are well into their 50-ties ...).
Of course, those proposals are praised as another victory of "social justice", and are well supported among people. Nobody thinks of the costs, or who is actually going to pay for that. The political parties managed to make people belief that there will be "more money from the state". And because group A (the mothers) got their share, it was only just to also give group B (the well into the 50-ties) theirs.
Meanwhile, the public delusion reaches ever higher grades. As you know, a well known argument against abolishing the state is "But who will build the roads?". Building and maintenance of public infrastructure is indeed one of the best arguments for the state. Now, the situation in Germany is, that despite the state (on all levels) earns 500+ billion EUR annually, they actually didn't maintain the roads and bridges, so that now when it is unavoidable lest you risk breakdown of bridges etc., the costs are even higher. Despite this, politicians say: "We don't have enough money to do it." And people even believe it! Now the idea is to make foreign car drivers pay road toll to bring in the money for road maintenance, and this proposal is absolutly popular. It's just crazy. Never mind that toll for trucks was installed only a few years ago, and raised at least once since, with the same reasoning: "The trucks destroy the roads, therefore, they need to pay their share for maintenance." Never mind that public infrastructure paid through taxes is one of the fundamental reason a state with the power to tax must exists in the first place. They just get away with it. People really believe that a few foreigners will bring in the costs. Nobody asks: Where is all that money you took on the grounds that public infrastructure must be provided by the state?