There was a similar provision (not for as long a duration) in the Constitution regarding the slave trade, one of the many compromises they had to make to pass thing.
The Southern states had control over whether or not their would even be a Constitution, that is called a negotiating position.
For a compromise to work, you need two sides in negotiation wanting something.
Don't see you offering anything to Congress Critters enough to buy into your 200 year moritorium on tax law changes. They have everything they need under the Contitution and amendments thereto and in the current income/payroll tax system as it stands.
The people that must buy into your 200 year restriction are the ones proposing amendments & making the laws that currently exist.
What is in it for your Congress Critter (a lesson in why we don't have a balanced budget amendment, supermajority rules on tax rates, or repeal of the 16th amendment for that matter.)
"As a matter of fact, what the income tax does — and this is the debate that I think we always try to get into in order to let you and him fight, see — and the people of this country are led down a path where the actual control of their resources, which in the end is the control over their will, is handed off to the government." . . .
"The government then manipulates that will in order to destroy the freedom of our electoral system through the income tax structure, and we call the resulting slavery a free system."
"In point of fact, it is not as the founders understood, and the only way to restore real freedom is to give people back control over the income that they earn so that they won‘t, at the voting booth and in other phony issues, be subject to that manipulation."
We could couple it with a repeal of all campaign finance laws.
As politicians, if it was politically tenable, they would love to repeal every campaign finance law on the book because it makes their jobs that much harder. If you had any sign of public support for such a thing, they'd do it.