We the consumer wouldn’t be impacted.

You evidently don’t understand macroeconomics. Even if the shareholders took the hit directly without raising prices it would place downward pressure on the economy if collected at the business level. You don’t take that much money out of the economy and not have it impact consumers. I understand that it gets replaced with the benefit, but that’s a lot of trouble to go through for a washout.

This is the problem when politicians that are uninformed try to “pay for” their programs. If the target for taxation is the shareholders then tax them directly, but only if they have too much money, not to pay for anything. Taxing a business to take money from shareholders places pressure on wages. If the benefit is justified and will help people without causing inflation then don’t bother paying for it at all. Taxing and spending are separate functions and we only get into trouble when we connect them to service some mostly meaningless budget number.

Amazon will raise prices you say? Sure, they could. But that would only leave opportunities open for other competitors to come in and chip away at Amazon’s business.

The benefit would, eventually, cause prices to come down because it would effectively freeze wages. Good luck talking your boss into a raise if the government is sending you $1000 per month. It would also boost shareholder ROI as inflation ate up the benefit. At some point, the benefit would actually cause wage inequity to overcome its value and make workers worse off. Things that work in a small setting/sample, even as large as a state, often don’t scale up to the national level with the same effect.

You also can’t, Constitutionally, levy a tax on a specific business and not its competitors. Since Amazon is in almost every market in the US the tax would have to be applied to all sales, making it effectively a sales tax.