H.R. 1610 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level.
Detailed Summary
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)
Status of the Legislation
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
Reducing taxes on alcoholic beverages is bad fiscal and public health policy. Lower alcohol taxes would add to the deficit, cater to a prosperous industry, reward and encourage heavy drinking, and attract more young drinkers. In fact, federal taxes on beer have been raised only once since Harry Truman was president. Today's tax rate is less than 30% of what it would be had it only kept up with inflation since 1991 when beer taxes were raised for the first time in 56 years. Given the enormous toll of the nation's existing alcohol-related public health and safety problems, why should Congress add a tax cut to the free ride the beer industry has already enjoyed? If anything, alcohol excise taxes increases are long overdue.
Current federal and state taxes on alcoholic beverages do not come close to offsetting the huge public health and safety costs of alcohol consumption, estimated at $184 billion per year, including $62 billion per year for the costs of underage drinking alone. The National Academies of Science Institute of Medicine cited a beer tax INCREASE among its recommendations for an evidence-based national strategy to reduce underage drinking.
Alcohol tax increases have been rare and modest. Beer and wine taxes have been raised only once in the past 55 years, liquor taxes only twice. As a result of failing to adjust the tax for inflation since the last increase in 1991, Congress has left on the table some $24 billion in revenues that could have helped support under-funded health and human needs programs or reduced the deficit.
An INCREASE in federal alcohol excise taxes is fair. About one-third of adults do not drink at all and among those who do, most drink so little that they would barely notice a tax decrease (or increase). Alcohol tax cuts would benefit only producers and the 20% of heavy and addicted drinkers who consume 85% of the alcohol.
Congress should reject self-serving special-interest beer industry appeals to lower federal excise taxes on beer and consider ways to raise taxes on all alcoholic beverages instead. A 2007 report of the Congressional Budget Office estimated that modestly increasing and reforming alcohol taxes could generate almost $28 billion in new revenue over five years. When the time comes to find new resources for important health and social programs, Congress should stand up to the alcoholic-beverage industry lobby and enact seriously overdue INCREASE in federal excise taxes on beer and other alcoholic-beverages.
From: The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Alcohol Policies Project, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009 Tel (202) 332-9110.
Visitor Comments
H. Simpson
D'oh, the stuff that buys me beer
Ray, the guy who brews the beer
Me, the guy who drinks the beer,
Fa(r), a long long way from beer,
So, I think I'll have a beer,
La, la la la la la beer,
Tea, no thanks I'll have a beer
Let's Get together and drink a beer,
beer, beer, beer!
Gary Tell
I don't see why we shouldn't lower the tax on beer, just like the tax on gas, and the tax on every otehr damn thing.
Kelly G.
Look at how the alcohol promotion industry controls our elected representatives. All so they can sell to kids! So much disease, death and destruction from this and Congress just goes along with them!
Jim H.
Kelly G.-
The alcohol industry doesn't want to sell to kids. The majority of kids get their alcohol from their friends or from family members. You rhetoric about "disease, death and destruction" detracts from your credibility and makes you sound like a teetotaling shill.