Some of the following prohibitions require explanation. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is important enough to warrant its own screen. The others I will just explain verbally.
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which declares a person or group to be guilty of a crime, and imposes a punishment without a judicial trial.
An ex post facto law is one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of an act committed prior to the enactment of the law. For example, supposing that today, August 14, you trespass over the local railroad property. Suppose further that such act is currently punishable by a fine of $100. Now suppose further that on September 1 the fine is increased to $200, to be retroactive until August 1, and at your court hearing on September 2, the judge charges you the $200. That would be an ex post facto law and it would be disallowed by this statement in the Constitution. The judge would only be allowed to fine you the $100 which was what the fine was as of the date on which you committed the act.
Income tax is a direct tax, but is specifically allowed via the 16th amendment to the Constitution. Social Security and Medicare are considered to be taxes on employment rather than direct taxes on the individual.
While the "No money drawn" prohibition has been included here, it is interpreted by the Supreme Court as a prohibition on the entire government. All expenditures by anyone most be first appropriated by an act of Congress.
Finally, the founders did consider it a big deal to accept foreign gifts, and they thought they had put a reasonable brake on it. They did not anticipate a situation in which the Congress kowtowed to the President. Arguably, this prohibition should apply to the Supreme Court, but it has never been enforced on them.