The "economy" is not just what is captured in formally taxable income. Large swaths of the economy is composed by absolutely essential reproductive labor that receives no direct monetary compensation. Conversely, the existence monetary income doesn't necessitate that economically meaningful or necessary labor is being performed, just that it is being compensated for in a formal manner.
Then, of course, there's unearned income -- very much so related to the topic of "stock ownership" that started this thread -- which, by definition, is acquired not through any meaningful contribution of labor to the "economy", but instead as a reward for the incidental private claim to profits our economic system happens to allow to people.
Also, "federal" here does not include not include payroll taxes, which are, nonetheless, considered "federal taxes" in any colloquial conception of the term.
Of course, in addition to the lying by omission, the true irony here is that the "lack" of "federal" taxes paid by the masses is more so a symptom of a deeply inequitable economic system than the counterbalancing endorsement of the status quo the OP likely envisions it to be.
It's related in that it morally licenses the privileged to be OK with wealth inequality because, see, the masses are actually being supported by the magnanimous benevolence of their betters.
This article is a jumble of broad strokes of conjecture with effectively zero empirical substance that vaguely alludes the just nature of the "meritocracy"; I have a hard time not interpreting it as a puff piece for the status quo.
Some people, in an otherwise disadvantaged situation, will benefit from this; that is completely fine in isolation. Still, it's wholly naive to assume that Amazon is doing this out of some sense of looking to do a "nice thing".
Most obviously, it is clear that this is being pushed as a pathway to IT education. Amazon, as a business, has massive vested interests in, one, increasing the size of the IT labor force, and two, promoting buy-in to its own IT infrastructure. It is irrational to not initially assume that this initiative is being conducted primarily to pursue such interests.
My criteria for being "happy" with the actions of a corporation like Amazon hinge on them doing something utterly unimaginable: going against the interests of their shareholders for the ultimate benefit of society at large. If, for instance, Amazon starts advocating for meaningful and equitable worker representation in business decisions that affect said workers, I'll be "happy".
I've never used PM, but just ran through sign-up for their free service. What could they do differently with regards to this issue? Simple. Make the legal limitations of their service -- or at least their understanding of them -- explicit, transparent, and above all, utterly conspicuous to anyone looking to use their service.
Then, of course, there's unearned income -- very much so related to the topic of "stock ownership" that started this thread -- which, by definition, is acquired not through any meaningful contribution of labor to the "economy", but instead as a reward for the incidental private claim to profits our economic system happens to allow to people.