Boston Public Health Commission, 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02118, United States.
Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, MC 275, 1747 W. Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL 60608, United States; Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60608, United States.
Prev Med. 2017 Dec;105S:S50-S55. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.08.013. Epub 2017 Aug 16.
There is strong scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of increasing alcohol taxes for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related problems. Opponents have argued that alcohol tax increases lead to job losses. However, there has been no comprehensive economic analysis of the impact of alcohol taxes on employment. To fill this gap, a regional macroeconomic simulation model was used to assess the net impact of two hypothetical alcohol tax increases (a 5-cent per drink excise tax increase and a 5% sales tax increase on beer, wine, and distilled spirits, respectively) on employment in Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. The model accounted for changes in alcohol demand, average state income, and substitution effects. The employment impact of spending the new tax revenue on general expenditures versus health care was also assessed. Simulation results showed that a 5-cent per drink additional excise tax on alcoholic beverages with new tax revenues allocated to general expenditures increased net employment in Arkansas (802 jobs); Florida (4583 jobs); Massachusetts (978 jobs); New Mexico (653 jobs); and Wisconsin (1167 jobs). A 5% additional sales tax also increased employment in Arkansas (789 jobs; Florida (4493 jobs); Massachusetts (898 jobs); New Mexico (621 jobs); and Wisconsin (991 jobs). Using new alcohol tax revenues to fund health care services resulted in slightly lower net increases in state employment. The overall economic impact of alcohol tax increases cannot be fully assessed without accounting for the job gains resulting from additional tax revenues.
有强有力的科学证据支持通过提高酒税来减少过度饮酒和相关问题。反对者认为提高酒税会导致失业。然而,还没有对酒税对就业的影响进行全面的经济分析。为了填补这一空白,使用区域宏观经济模拟模型评估了两种假设的酒税增加(每杯饮料增加 5 美分的消费税和分别对啤酒、葡萄酒和烈性酒征收 5%的销售税)对阿肯色州、佛罗里达州、马萨诸塞州、新墨西哥州和威斯康星州就业的净影响。该模型考虑了酒精需求、平均州收入和替代效应的变化。还评估了将新增税收用于一般支出与医疗保健的就业影响。模拟结果表明,对含酒精饮料征收每杯 5 美分的额外消费税,并将新增税收用于一般支出,阿肯色州(802 个工作岗位)、佛罗里达州(4583 个工作岗位)、马萨诸塞州(978 个工作岗位)、新墨西哥州(653 个工作岗位)和威斯康星州(1167 个工作岗位)的净就业人数增加。征收 5%的额外销售税也增加了阿肯色州(789 个工作岗位;佛罗里达州(4493 个工作岗位);马萨诸塞州(898 个工作岗位);新墨西哥州(621 个工作岗位)和威斯康星州(991 个工作岗位)的就业人数。将新增酒精税收入用于支付医疗保健服务,会略微降低州内就业的净增长。如果不考虑额外税收带来的就业收益,就无法全面评估酒税增加的整体经济影响。