What you quote has nothing to do with repealing the constitutional command that “direct” taxes are required to be apportioned.
In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:
"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax. but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”
And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:
"The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States."
The fact is it does not matter what one calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.
The truth is, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 has never been repealed and declares:
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)