[Ken H]

I don't disagree with your points. However, none of that changes the fact that the case has nothing to do with the 16th Amendment. In an earlier post, in which you were speaking of mortgage deductions et al, you wrote:

Had Roberts ruled that such things were unconstitutional, there would be fury over the increase in taxes paid as deductions were eliminated.

There is simply no way he could have ruled such deductions unconstitutional since the 16th Amendment was not involved. Again, suppose the 16th Amendment did not exist. Would that have changed this ruling?

[Ken H]

Revision to my prior post: I don’t agree that this is an income tax.

[conservative sympathizer]

If the 16th amendment didn't exist, then deductions would be next to impossible to implement because of the difficulty of creating a deduction that would affect an equal proportion of people in each state.

Consider a deduction for solar panels. It's very unlikely that the proportion of citizens taking a deduction for solar panels in Maine would equal the proportion of citizens taking the deduction in California.

The disproportionate tax burden that would arise between the states of Maine and California would make such tax law unconstitutional.