Re-reading one of the things you said, there's another flaw in the dots you are connecting. You said, "the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, because the federal government can not impose direct tax, which an income tax is..."
That's not entirely true.
The clause you are referring to is specifically:
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
There are a couple of things to understand here. First, is what a Capitation is. Capitation is a per person (or in some cases per property) fee. So, if there were a tax such as "$10 per person", this would be a Capitation. So, an income tax (which is percentage based) in not
Secondly a direct tax is one that is imposed directly on a person (or property). For instance, you can't avoid a direct tax because a direct tax is imposed by you simply existing
. A direct tax is in contrast to a transaction tax, which is based on an event
. You can avoid event-based taxes by simply not participating in said event, so a transaction tax is not a direct tax. An income tax is not
a direct tax
. It is transaction based. It is based on you earning an income. One can exist and not earn an income, so a tax based on income is by definition not a poll (or direct) tax.
Since an income tax is neither a Capitation nor a direct tax, the clause you are referring to does not apply. It's as simple as that.
The reason the Supreme court had an issue (in 1895) with some income taxes is because these income taxes were based on the income from property
). This, they determined, meant these taxes were direct taxes. Direct taxes are not
unconstitutional, they simply have to be in Proportion to the Census. In other words, people in more populous states need to pay a larger share that those in less populous states. Since these taxes on income from property were not proportionate to the population of the state, these particular taxes were deemed unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with all
income taxes, simply those tied to property. And income taxes based on property would have been allowed
if the taxes had been proportionate based on the population of each state. The 16th Amendment made this a moot point by considering all income taxes, whether from property or not, to be indirect taxes.
So what does this all mean? It means that income taxes from wages have always
been taxable according to the constitution. The only kind of income tax that was up for debate was from the income from property, which changed with the 16th Amendment. Even if you were to nuke the 16th Amendment, income taxes from wages would still be constitutionally sound. And even so, income from property would also
be able to be taxed, it's just that people in California would have to pay a greater share than people in New York. Neither of these situations suggest that "the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, because the federal government can not impose direct tax, which an income tax is..." That's just patently false.