Search

Objective: Higher alcohol taxation is protective against alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. All states have specific (volume-based) excise taxes for alcohol that decrease if not adjusted for inflation. These taxes have diminished substantially in real terms since their inception after National Prohibition in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in the magnitude and frequency of changes in state specific excise taxes to document their erosion., Method: Alcohol excise tax data were examined for all 50 states from 1933 to 2018. Tax data were obtained from the Alcohol Policy Information System, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Wine Institute, and HeinOnline. Linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted for beer, wine, and distilled spirits taxes to examine trends in the frequency and inflation-adjusted magnitude of changes in taxes from the year of alcohol tax inception., Results: From 1933 until 1970, beer, wine, and distilled spirits tax rates increased in value compared with inception rates, but by 2018 alcohol taxes had declined 66%, 71%, and 70%, respectively, compared with their inception values. The erosion of taxes after 1970 was driven primarily by declines in the magnitude of tax increases through the 1970s and 1980s, followed by declines in the frequency of tax increases in subsequent decades., Conclusions: The value of alcohol excise taxes has declined since 1970 from both insufficient tax increases and later infrequent tax increases. Laws that index rates to inflation could sustain the public health benefit of reduced morbidity and mortality resulting from higher alcohol tax rates.

Objective: At least one type of tax is applied to the sale of alcoholic beverages in all U.S. states. The purpose of this study was to characterize the composition and magnitude of alcohol taxes in states and to assess the relationship between total alcohol taxes (federal plus state) and the cost of excessive drinking., Method: The amount of tax (in dollars per standard drink) by state was estimated from data on state ad valorem excise, specific excise, and sales taxes in 2010 obtained from the Alcohol Policy Information System and Tax Foundation. These taxes were summed, and specific excise taxes were assessed as a proportion of total state taxes. Tax data on beer were analyzed for all 50 states. Tax data for wine and distilled spirits were restricted to the 32 license states and Washington, D.C., with fully privatized distribution systems. Total alcohol taxes for the 32 license states were compared on a per-drink basis with published state estimates of the cost of excessive drinking in these states in 2010., Results: Specific excise taxes accounted for a weighted median of 20.1% of total state alcohol tax revenue in the 32 license states and Washington, D.C. The median total alcohol tax per drink (based on all federal and state taxes) was $0.21, which accounted for 26.7% of the median cost to government and 10.3% of the median total economic cost of excessive drinking., Conclusions: Specific excise taxes account for one fifth of state alcohol taxes in the 32 license states; but even considering all tax types, total alcohol taxes account for only one tenth of alcohol-related costs.

Objective: In the United States, excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 88,000 deaths annually and cost $249 billion, or $2.05 per drink, in 2010. Specific excise taxes, the predominant form of alcohol taxation in the United States, are based on the volume of alcohol sold rather than a percentage of price and can thus degrade over time because of inflation. The objective of this study was to describe changes in inflation-adjusted state alcohol excise taxes on a beverage-specific basis., Method: State-level data on specific excise taxes were obtained from the Alcohol Policy Information System and the Tax Foundation. Excise tax rates were converted into the tax per standard U.S. drink (14 g of ethanol) for beer, wine, and distilled spirits, and converted into 2015 dollars using annual Consumer Price Index data., Results: Across U.S. states, the average state alcohol excise tax per drink in 2015 was $0.03 for beer, $0.05 for distilled spirits, and $0.03 for wine. From 1991 to 2015, the average inflation-adjusted (in 2015 dollars) state alcohol excise tax rate declined 30% for beer, 32% for distilled spirits, and 27% for wine. Percentage declines in state excise taxes since their inception were more than twice as large as those from 1991 to 2015., Conclusions: In 2015, average state specific excise taxes were $0.05 or less per standard drink across all beverage types and have experienced substantial inflation-adjusted declines.

Introduction: Despite strong evidence that increasing alcohol taxes reduces alcohol-related harm, state alcohol taxes have declined in real terms during the past 3 decades. Opponents of tax increases argue that they are unfair to "responsible" drinkers and those who are financially disadvantaged. The objectives of this study were to assess the impact of hypothetical state alcohol tax increases on the cost of alcohol for adults in the United States on the basis of alcohol consumption and sociodemographic characteristics., Methods: The increased net cost of alcohol (ie, product plus tax) from a series of hypothetical state alcohol tax increases was modeled for all 50 states using data from the 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, IMPACT Databank, and the Alcohol Policy Information System. Costs were assessed by drinking pattern (excessive vs nonexcessive) and by sociodemographic characteristics., Results: Among states, excessive drinkers would pay 4.8 to 6.8 times as much as nonexcessive drinkers on a per capita basis and would pay at least 72% of aggregate costs. For nonexcessive drinkers, the annual cost from even the largest hypothetical tax increase ($0.25 per drink) would average less than $10.00. Drinkers with higher household incomes and non-Hispanic white drinkers would pay higher per capita costs than people with lower incomes and racial/ethnic minorities., Conclusion: State-specific tax increases would cost more for excessive drinkers, those with higher incomes, and non-Hispanic whites. Costs to nonexcessive drinkers would be modest. Findings are relevant to developing evidence-based public health practice for a leading preventable cause of death.

Aims: U.S. studies contribute heavily to the literature about the tax elasticity of demand for alcohol, and most U.S. studies have relied upon specific excise (volume-based) taxes for beer as a proxy for alcohol taxes. The purpose of this paper was to compare this conventional alcohol tax measure with more comprehensive tax measures (incorporating multiple tax and beverage types) in analyses of the relationship between alcohol taxes and adult binge drinking prevalence in U.S. states., Design: Data on U.S. state excise, ad valorem and sales taxes from 2001 to 2010 were obtained from the Alcohol Policy Information System and other sources. For 510 state-year strata, we developed a series of weighted tax-per-drink measures that incorporated various combinations of tax and beverage types, and related these measures to state-level adult binge drinking prevalence data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys., Findings: In analyses pooled across all years, models using the combined tax measure explained approximately 20% of state binge drinking prevalence, and documented more negative tax elasticity (-0.09, P = 0.02 versus -0.005, P = 0.63) and price elasticity (-1.40, P < 0.01 versus -0.76, P = 0.15) compared with models using only the volume-based tax. In analyses stratified by year, the R-squares for models using the beer combined tax measure were stable across the study period (P = 0.11), while the R-squares for models rely only on volume-based tax declined (P < 0.0)., Conclusions: Compared with volume-based tax measures, combined tax measures (i.e. those incorporating volume-based tax and value-based taxes) yield substantial improvement in model fit and find more negative tax elasticity and price elasticity predicting adult binge drinking prevalence in U.S. states., (© 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Background: Prior research attributed youth alcohol consumption to the attitudes and drinking patterns among adults. Yet at a population level, few have examined the relationship between state-level adult binge drinking prevalence and youth drinking behaviors, or whether tax policy plays a role in this relationship., Methods: We analyzed 6 biennial surveys (1999 to 2009) of individual-level youth alcohol use and related behaviors from state-based Youth Risk Behavior Surveys and corresponding years of state-level adult binge drinking prevalence from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We employed logistic regression with generalized estimating equations method to assess the extent to which state adult binge drinking predicted individual-level youth drinking outcomes and examined the role of alcohol taxes in that relationship., Results: Population-aggregate analyses based on 194 state-year strata showed a positive correlation between state adult binge drinking and youth binge drinking (Pearson r = 0.40, p < 0.01). For individual-level youth drinking outcomes, a 5 percentage point increase in binge drinking prevalence among adults was associated with a 12% relative increase in the odds of alcohol use (adjusted OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.16). Taxes were strongly inversely related with adult and youth drinking measures, and the effect of tax on youth drinking was attenuated after controlling for adult binge drinking., Conclusions: Both tax and adult binge drinking are strong predictors of youth drinking. Tax may affect youth drinking through its effect on adult alcohol consumption. Implementing effective alcohol policies to reduce excessive drinking in the general population is an important strategy to reduce youth drinking., (Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

The authors investigated the relationship between state excise taxes and liquor prices in 8 states, using 2012 data for 45 brands. The authors made 6042 price observations among 177 liquor stores with online prices. Using a hierarchical model, the authors examined the relationship between excise taxes and product prices. State excise taxes were significantly related to liquor prices, with an estimated pass-through rate of 0.93. The proportion of price accounted for by excise taxes averaged 7.0%. The authors find that excise taxes do increase the price of alcohol, but states are not taking advantage of this opportunity to reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

Background: Excessive alcohol consumption causes 79,000 deaths annually in the U.S., shortening the lives of those who die from it by approximately 30 years. Although alcohol taxation is an effective measure to reduce excessive consumption and related harm, some argue that increasing alcohol taxes places an unfair economic burden on "responsible" drinkers and socially disadvantaged people., Purpose: To examine the impact of a hypothetic tax increase based on alcohol consumption and sociodemographic characteristics of current drinkers, individually and in aggregate., Methods: Data from the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed from 2010 to 2011 to determine the net financial impact of a hypothetic 25-cent-per-drink tax increase on current drinkers in the U.S. Higher-risk drinkers were defined as those whose past-30-day consumption included binge drinking, heavy drinking, drinking in excess of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, and alcohol-impaired driving., Results: Of U.S. adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 days, 50.4% (or approximately 25% of the total U.S. population) were classified as higher-risk drinkers. The tax increase would result in a 9.2% reduction in alcohol consumption, including an 11.4% reduction in heavy drinking. Compared with lower-risk drinkers, higher-risk drinkers would pay 4.7 times more in net increased annual per capita taxes, and 82.7% of the net increased annual aggregate taxes. Lower-risk drinkers would pay less than $30 in net increased taxes annually. In aggregate, groups who paid the most in net tax increases included those who were white, male, aged 21-50 years, earning ≥$50,000 per year, employed, and had a college degree., Conclusions: A 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase would reduce excessive drinking, and higher-risk drinkers would pay the substantial majority of the net tax increase., (Copyright © 2012 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A systematic review of the literature to assess the effectiveness of alcohol tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms was conducted for the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). Seventy-two papers or technical reports, which were published prior to July 2005, met specified quality criteria, and included evaluation outcomes relevant to public health (e.g., binge drinking, alcohol-related crash fatalities), were included in the final review. Nearly all studies, including those with different study designs, found that there was an inverse relationship between the tax or price of alcohol and indices of excessive drinking or alcohol-related health outcomes. Among studies restricted to underage populations, most found that increased taxes were also significantly associated with reduced consumption and alcohol-related harms. According to Community Guide rules of evidence, these results constitute strong evidence that raising alcohol excise taxes is an effective strategy for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. The impact of a potential tax increase is expected to be proportional to its magnitude and to be modified by such factors as disposable income and the demand elasticity for alcohol among various population groups., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)