In particular, one should read, and consider, the following passage from the second opinion, on rehearing, in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 603 (1896):
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such. (emphasis added).
To put that into plain English, a tax on the income earned from carrying on a trade or business, exercising a privilege (such as an attorney), or wages from providing services as an employee or independent contractor is a perfectly good excise tax and NOT A DIRECT TAX, PERIOD and therefore repeal of the 16th Amendment would do nothing to change that.
In other words, if you repealed the 16th Amendment, Congress could still impose an income tax much as it pleases on wages and business profits, but would no longer be able to tax capital gains derived from real property or stocks & bonds (and other financial assets) held for investment.
To put it even more bluntly, only the rich and liberal trust fund babies would benefit from repealing the 16th Amendment, no-one else would.
That being said, there is a lot of wisdom behind the argument that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. The Founders carefully balanced all of the powers they granted in the Constitution, and the purposefully placed the election of the Senators with the state legislatures because they knew that Senators needed to answer to a slightly different constituency if they were to act as any sort of a real brake on the demagoguery potential in the House of Representatives, who were elected by the individual citizens.
The 17th Amendment ruined that very subtle, very important distinction between Senators and Representatives, and essentially converted the Senators into super-Representatives, with three times the term, and with a vote that, today, is the equivalent of the vote of 5, plus, Representatives. In other words, the 17th Amendment turned the Senate into a gang of super-demagogues, as we can now see beyond any peradventure with the likes of Barney Frank and Co.
The 17th Amendment should most definitely be repealed. If there be need for some sort of ersatz populist sweetener, then it should suffice to point out that each individual state legislature can always decide to determine whom their Senators will be by holding popular elections. Nothing in the Constitution has ever, or would ever should the 17th be repealed, prevent that.
.
