New R.I. bill could raise the price of beer
Abe Lubetkin
Issue date: 2/27/07 Section: Metro
|
Rep. Edwin Pacheco, D-Dist. 47, introduced a bill Feb. 1 in the Rhode Island General Assembly that would raise the state beer tax to finance substance abuse treatment programs.
Supporters of the proposal say it would help the state's financially strapped rehab centers, while critics argue the legislation would do nothing more than drive beer-drinking Rhode Islanders to Massachusetts, where alcohol is already less expensive.
Pacheco said Rhode Island's substance abuse treatment programs need help.
"If we want (substance abuse) services to be available, we have to fund them in some way, shape or form," he said. "Unfortunately in Rhode Island, they're lacking."
His bill would raise the pre-sales tax price of beer and stipulate that revenue generated by the price hike go toward combating substance abuse.
Currently Rhode Island beer consumers pay an excise tax - which is added to the price before the sales tax is calculated - of $3 per 31 gallons (roughly 30 cents for a case of 30 beers), but the money goes toward the state's general expenditure fund, not toward combating substance abuse, Pacheco said. The proposed bill would double that tax, making it $6 per 31 gallons (roughly 60 cents for a case of 30), and mandate that substance abuse rehabilitation centers and programs receive the additional income.
Though the House Finance Committee has not analyzed how much revenue the proposal could generate, Pacheco said it could yield roughly $2.3 million dollars per year. However, he said would be open to stripping the tax increase from the bill if lawmakers would agree to allocate money from the existing beer tax toward alcoholism treatment programs.
"I think that would be great," he said. "The ultimate goal here is to provide sufficient services for substance abuse treatment and prevention."
The Providence Journal reported Feb. 9 that the measure was intended to curb underage drinking, but Pacheco said this is not a goal of the bill because the price increase is not large enough to act as a deterrent.