Amazon.com is complying with the law by not collecting sales tax in states (such as Texas) where it lacks a physical presence. This doesn't mean customers in Texas and these other states don't owe the tax, because they do. (Whether they pay it is another question; most probably do not.) It means Amazon.com doesn't have to collect it. This man wants Amazon.com voluntarily to collect the tax, i.e., to do so even though it is not required by law. This is idiotic. The business of business is to maximize its profit within the confines of the law. If the author doesn't like this, he should strive to change the law by, among other things, contacting his elected representatives. Query: Do you suppose the author voluntarily pays sales tax when he makes purchases from Amazon.com? The state of California, where he lives, cannot make Amazon.com collect taxes for it, since the company has no physical presence there, so it's up to him to pay the state directly when he makes purchases. Shouldn't he have answered this question in his column? Doesn't intellectual honesty (or just plain honesty) require it?
Addendum: It seems to me that the author has two choices, given his values. The first is to refrain from making purchases from Amazon.com. The second is to make purchases but then pay sales on them directly to the state of California. If he makes purchases from Amazon.com but doesn't pay sales tax directly to the state, he is a hypocrite, for he is asking Amazon.com to do something that he isn't willing to do.
Addendum 2: Actually, it's worse than hypocrisy! The author is required by law to pay sales tax on his purchases from Amazon.com. Amazon.com is not required by law to collect sales tax on his purchases. So the author is asking Amazon.com to do something that it is not required by law to do, while he fails to do something that is required by law! (I'm assuming that he makes purchases from Amazon.com but doesn't pay sales tax directly to the state of California.)
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 