That's less than a tenth of what Microsoft paid in income tax during the same period, $46.9bn, even through Amazon's revenue during the decade exceeded Microsoft's by about $80bn.
Woah, stop. Just stop. Their argument here is wrong on various levels. First, income is not the same as revenue, and Amazon is in a low-margin business; it makes sense for them to have a much lower income than Microsoft, and pay less income tax. Second, they say Amazon's revenue exceeded Microsoft's by $80bn, as if this was a huge difference; but that actually means Amazon's revenue was around 10% higher than Microsoft's, since they both had revenues of about $1tn these past 10 years.
Large corp are not paying enough taxes, I can believe that. But people shouldn't randomly compare large numbers and claim it means something.