...ex-IRS agent, Joe Bannister. Here he is breaking it down. Starts off with his back ground, and the meat starts at 10:50
It seems to me, a compassionate person ought to be en garde against the potential for federal taxation to go in the direction of: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," which tends to demotivate productive achievement and historically has even led to the starvation and deliberate killing of >60m non-combatant civilians, in multiple countries over various times.
Having said that, there's a required set of vital functions of federal government, which must be funded by taxation: i) the police to protect you from criminals; ii) the military to protect you from foreign invaders; and iii) the courts to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to constitutional law. Otherwise, a minority of criminals can more easily run the show, as we see in venezuela, mexico, brazil, and columbia, and the occasional autist leader with narcissism, like lenin, stalin, putin, tends to invade neighbors he perceives as militarily weak. Playground bullies only respect opposing strength.
The power of congress to tax income derives from Article 1 of the Constitution ("the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes..."), rather than from the 16th Amendment. The latter simply eliminated the requirement (in Article 1) that an income tax must be 'apportioned,' i.e., that each citizen pays the same amount, irrespective of relative wealth or earned income.
The primary author of the Constitution, Madison, describes the purpose of Article 1 in Federalist No. 42, including the purpose of it to cover not only an external excise tax on imported goods but also a tax on internal commerce:
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50
I read Bannister's argument, including his 94 page paper. With my stated sentiment in his direction, I tried but alas didn't find his argument technically correct. His argument relies on distorted interpretation of certain terms in the relevant statutes. But even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified: 1) that's not where congress gets its power to tax, and 2), even so, a tax is vital for certain government functions, and we should reluctantly accept it or even welcome it to that extent, albeit no further.