You are simply misunderstanding Brushaber. There was no new power, as Congress already had the power to tax incomes. The purpose of the 16th was to permit the elimination of the distinction of direct and indirect taxes.
Congress did not have the power to lay unapportioned taxes before the 16th, and Congress had no power to lay unapportioned taxes after the 16th.
Read the decision before you read the books from some tax protester who is serving 5 to 10.
Frederick Bastiat in "The Law" explained it very well in his little book.
Bastiat recognized that governments should protect the freedom to earn a living, and he surmised that each attempt to coerce revenue from the productive was to some extent counterproductive to a free society. But he also recognized that a free society cannot exist by itself without structure. If he were alive today, he would not be in favor of the income tax, but rather a tax on consumption, as that would not hinder the production of goods and services as much as an income tax does. But so what?
Sir, that is just false and everyone here knows it.
You mean all the great economists of the world here on FR? Most of us here on FR can distinguish between communism and capitalism. That the government sometimes engages in tactics more indicative of socialism than capitalism does not make us a communist economy by any stretch of the imagination.
Whatever way it is, anything you say is suspect. Communist sympathizer.
I suppose when ignorance is one's only tool, he will resort to such inane personal attacks. You seem to be no exception.
So, you readily, and repeatedly, have ceded the argument, and acknowledged that a tax on consumption is superior, but just don't care.