There's one big reason Trump wouldn't want to go after Amazon

Adjust Comment Print

A combination photo shows Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (L) in NY and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC, U.S. on December 14, 2016 and on December 20, 2017 respectively.

Mr Trump's attack on Amazon has already had a direct effect on founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, whose net worth reportedly dropped by $16 billion after the tweets.

Amazon shares are down 1% today and down 8.3% in the past week since Axios reported that Trump is more concerned with Amazon than Facebook.


President Donald Trump keeps slamming Amazon, but there's a big reason why the president is unlikely to follow through on any of his threats: the stock market. In fact, Amazon pays the same lower rate that the post office charges other bulk shippers, and it collects sales tax in every state that charges it. He says the company takes advantage of the post office and does not pay its fair share of tax.

Corporations may have their own reasons to applaud the Trump Administration's tax bill, but there has been a lot of criticism.

According to Fortune, Jeff Bezos, the world's richest man, lost over 10 billion in net worth after the President tweeted about his company. Trump hasn't taken action against Amazon.


In the latest in a line of tweets attacking Amazon, Trump seemed to be responding to those who have said that the US Postal Service does indeed make a profit from its work with Amazon.

Representatives of Amazon and USPS had no comment on Trump's tweet on Tuesday and could not be immediately reached regarding his latest comments to reporters. He estimated at the time that Amazon pays the postal service US$2 per package, which is about half what it would pay publicly traded United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp.

"It's inappropriate for government officials to use their position to attack an American company", said Neil Bradley, chief policy officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing the value of the free enterprise system and the rule of law.


Comments