critcrim.org visitors and friends

Many of the books that have been highlighted on this site were written by members of the Division or Section. In some cases links were added at the request of the author. These links were removed in a previous version of this site, and I was encouraged to bring them back, so I want to explain the recent decision to remove the links.

The following article describes the wider issues, but the short version is that I have never been totally comfortable with these advertisements and am reluctant to continue directing sales to this particular company. I am working on alternatives that will allow us to continue the effort to highlight books of interest to critical criminologists.

The following, by David Serota, helps explain the context of this decision:

The Tax War Goes Online

Is the Internet everywhere or is it nowhere?

This question will strike many readers as a navel-gazing exercise in postmodern existential inquiry, prompting reflections on the 21st century meaning of location (is an IP address really an address?) and space (is cyberspace actually “space”?). But thanks to Amazon.com, it’s become a question about more concrete and imminent issues like budget deficits and tax fairness.

Following a 70 percent earnings increase last quarter, the company this week terminated its business relationships with its Colorado affiliates. The move was a response to new Colorado legislation compelling online retailers to either collect the sales taxes that every other business collects, or at least disclose that customers must pay the levy to the state themselves.

The bill was pragmatic, seeking to raise much-needed revenues as Colorado’s infrastructure and schools buckle under a $2 billion budget shortfall. But Amazon, indifferent to such emergencies, reacted with punitive petulance, sending a deliberate message to lawmakers in every other state: If you make us play by the same tax rules as other businesses, your state will be punished, too.

The company, you see, fears that most capitalist of principles: fair competition. It instead relies on a rigged market.

Despite the ubiquity of its Web presence and its affiliates, Amazon says it officially exists in only four states (Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota and Washington) and that it therefore isn’t required to collect local taxes on its transactions in the other 46 states. That has allowed the company to sell goods at seemingly lower prices than local brick-and-mortar competitors, which in turn artificially tilts the market in Amazon’s favor.

In recent years, New York, North Carolina, Hawaii and Rhode Island have woken up to the scheme, passing laws that explicitly apply their local taxes to online retailers. Now, with budget crises intensifying, even more states are pondering similar legislation. And so rather than simply accepting a level playing field, Amazon opted to make an example out of Colorado as a means of pre-emptive intimidation.

Full article