U.S. Alcohol Affordability and Real Tax Rates, 1950–2011


      The affordability of alcoholic beverages, determined by the relationship of prices to incomes, may be an important factor in relation to heavy drinking, but little is known about how affordability has changed over time.


      To calculate real prices and affordability measures for alcoholic beverages in the U.S. over the period from 1950 to 2011.


      Affordability is calculated as the percentage of mean disposable income required to purchase 1 drink per day of the cheapest spirits, as well as popular brands of spirits, beer, and wine. Alternative income and price measures also are considered. Analyses were conducted in 2012.


      One drink per day of the cheapest brand of spirits required 0.29% of U.S. mean per capita disposable income in 2011 as compared to 1.02% in 1980, 2.24% in 1970, 3.61% in 1960, and 4.46% in 1950. One drink per day of a popular beer required 0.96% of income in 2010 compared to 4.87% in 1950, whereas a low-priced wine in 2011 required 0.36% of income compared to 1.05% in 1978. Reduced real federal and state tax rates were an important source of the declines in real prices.


      Alcoholic beverages sold for off-premises consumption are more affordable today than at any time in the past 60 years; dramatic increases in affordability occurred particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. Declines in real prices are a major component of this change. Increases in alcoholic beverage tax rates and/or implementing minimum prices, together with indexing these to inflation could be used to mitigate further declines in real prices.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cook P.J.
        Paying the tab: the costs and benefits of alcohol control.
        Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ2007
        • Wagenaar A.C.
        • Salois M.J.
        • Komro K.A.
        Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies.
        Addiction. 2009; 104: 179-190
        • Xu X.
        • Chaloupka F.J.
        The effects of prices on alcohol use and its consequences.
        Alcohol Res Health. 2011; 34: 236-245
        • Wall M.
        • Casswell S.
        Affordability of alcohol as a key driver of alcohol demand in New Zealand: a co-integration analysis.
        Addiction. 2013; 108: 72-79
        • Imlach Gunasekara F.
        • Wilson N.
        Very cheap drinking in New Zealand: some alcohol is more affordable than bottled water and nearly as cheap as milk.
        N Z Med J. 2010; 123: 103-107
        • Bogdanovica I.
        • Murray R.
        • McNeill D.
        • Britton J.
        Cigarette price, affordability and smoking prevalence in the European Union.
        Addiction. 2011; 107: 188-196
        • The NHS Information Centre, Lifestyles Statistics
        Statistics on alcohol: England, 2010.
        The Health and Social Care Information Centre, Leeds, West Yorkshire, England2010, May 26 (Archived by WebCite®)
        • Anderson P.
        Alcohol as a key area.
        Br Med J. 1991; 303: 766-769
        • Anderson P.
        A safe, sensible and social AHRSE: new Labour and alcohol policy.
        Addiction. 2007; 102: 1515-1521
        • Seabrook R.
        A new measure of alcohol affordability for the UK.
        Alcohol Alcohol. 2010; 45: 581-585
        • Lancaster K.J.
        A new approach to consumer theory.
        J Polit Econ. 1966; 74: 132-157
        • Rosen S.
        Hedonistic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition.
        J Polit Econ. 1974; 82: 34-55
        • Ponicki W.R.
        Statewide availability data system II:1933-2003.
        Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Prevention Research Center, Berkeley CA2004
        • Meier P.S.
        • Purshouse R.
        • Brennan A.
        Policy options for alcohol price regulation: the importance of modelling population heterogeneity.
        Addiction. 2010; 105: 383-393
        • Rehm J.
        • Mathers C.
        • Popova S.
        • Thavorncharoensap M.
        • Teerawattananon Y.
        • Patra J.
        Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders.
        Lancet. 2009; 373: 2223-2233

      Linked Article

      • Maximizing the Public Health Impact of Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes
        American Journal of Preventive MedicineVol. 44Issue 5
        • Preview
          Significant increases in alcohol and tobacco taxes are among the most effective policies governments have for improving public health. Higher alcohol taxes reduce the prevalence, frequency, and intensity of drinking,1 as well as the traffic crashes, liver cirrhosis, violence, and other health and social consequences of harmful drinking.2 Likewise, increases in tobacco taxes promote cessation among adult users, prevent young people from taking up tobacco use, and reduce the death, disease, and economic consequences caused by tobacco.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF