Who in the hell resurrected the income tax?
Wouldn't it require authorization first? I remember a bill repealing the power to assess an income tax. Merely stating that the income tax is now X arguably wouldn't overcome the denial of authorization without something more. A few sessions ago Governor Dip proposed a bill expressly allowing an income tax but setting it at 0% as a compromise as an attempt to try and give the southernern chamber the future option to assess an income tax. That bill failed though.
I don't recognize a distinction between repealing a tax and setting it to 0%, because the ability to levy tax always remains with the regional government.
Furthermore, the ability to levy taxation is provided for in regards to the budget in Article III, Section 10, i.e. "All budgets must include a plan for revenue and taxation." It is notable that there is no requirement that the plan for revenue and taxation required in the budget be reflected in existing statute, and to infer such a requirement would be unjustified based on the typical usage of the word "plan".
Delegate Jbrase suggests a Constitutional ban on income tax, but I will note that expenditures being secreted away in the budget is no less of a risk than taxation items being attached there. I would suggest that the best solution would be one that better defines the limits of the budget as well as the rules concerning taxation and appropriation in the government, items that are left nebulous in the current text of the Constitution.
