I like the idea of measuring or anticipating the effects of a tax in units of deaths avoided/caused and quality of life gained/lost instead of in monetary terms. The monetary measurement of the impacts of a tax (the common approach among economists) can be quite a bad proxy for actual things we care about: saving and improving lives. There’s actually a growing field of economics aiming to replace the GDP measure with quality of life measurements.
I understand your causal mechanism to be as follows: (1) taxation reduces people’s income, (2) having less income makes working risky jobs financially more attractive, (3) this causes more people to die. While this sounds plausible, I see quite a few problems with the approach that you’re suggesting, which I’ll cover below. (I won’t go in-depth into the calculation you used since you already mentioned that it’s not accurate and I assume the point of your post is to advocate for starting a subdiscipline of economics, rather than providing a method for calculation.)
Use of VSL estimates
VSL estimates come from looking at the wage differences between similar jobs with different occupational fatality rates, for example lumberjacks and gardeners. In the USA, for every $13 million or so in increased wages among we-assume-otherwise-identical jobs, one person dies on the job.
VSL estimates are intended be used to understand how people value small reductions in risk, not to predict the outcome of increased wages on deaths. Greater risk leads to higher pay, but higher pay doesn’t lead to this increase in deaths per se. For example, demand for risky jobs like firefighters isn’t very elastic (the number of firefighters society needs is more or less fixed), and even if that wasn’t the case, less qualified or experienced people may enter the field. I wouldn’t use the VSL for this purpose since the methods used to calculate it don’t establish this causal link.
Not a lot of people die in workplace accidents
I don’t think people taking riskier jobs, as the VSL approach would assume, is the primary negative impact of taxation. Rather, I think reducing people’s spendable income makes them less likely to buy healthy food, less likely to live in air-conditioned or heated houses, and less likely to be able to afford medical bills. Only a very small number of people actually die in accidents—let alone workplace accidents. So if we want to know the mortality effect of a tax, it would be more interesting to research questions such as: what is the effect of this tax on cardiovascular health (e.g. unable to buy healthy food) or lung health (e.g. air pollution).
Taxation is used to reduce mortality
If it is not obvious to you that these numbers are all more than zero, consider the basic facts that poverty kills people, and taxes take money from people.
Interestingly, having low income, low wealth, low education, and low social status are very strong determinants of early mortality. This is exactly what taxation is trying to tackle. If we take the data for my country (The Netherlands), for example, we see that more than half of all public spending goes to healthcare and social security, and another 12% goes to education. In short, taxation is mostly used to make healthcare affordable or to alleviate social determinants of mortality.
So no, I don’t think we can assume that taxation kills people.
People in poverty are mostly exempt from taxes
poverty kills people, and taxes take money from people
Looking at distributive effects is probably really important here. I can imagine that taxing people to the point that they enter poverty (as you suggested) makes things a lot worse for them. Most countries have some type of tax-free threshold under which you don’t have to pay income taxes. Low incomes are only taxed relatively little. Some taxes, like VAT on food, fall disproportionately on the poor since they spend a larger share of their income on food.
So, theoretically it’s possible that taxation causes poverty, and poverty causes deaths. But if we look at the top causes of global poverty, we see that poverty is mostly caused by things we can tackle by spending tax money: on safety nets and food programmes to stop hunger, on healthcare systems to improve access, on sanitation and clean water to improve hygiene and save time, on education to give kids a prosperous future, on infrastructure so that people can get to work, on creating jobs...
Summary
In summary, I’m in favour of researching the effects of taxation and public spending on mortality, but I expect the sign on most taxes to be negative (i.e. reducing mortality), at least when the tax incidence is not on people in poverty and public funds are spent on sensible projects. I think the method based on the VSL is probably not appropriate, but your proposal to have a government consider the effects of mortality makes sense since we can probably make a good guesstimate of the effects of a tax or government programme on social determinants of mortality.
I like the idea of measuring or anticipating the effects of a tax in units of deaths avoided/caused and quality of life gained/lost instead of in monetary terms. The monetary measurement of the impacts of a tax (the common approach among economists) can be quite a bad proxy for actual things we care about: saving and improving lives. There’s actually a growing field of economics aiming to replace the GDP measure with quality of life measurements.
I understand your causal mechanism to be as follows: (1) taxation reduces people’s income, (2) having less income makes working risky jobs financially more attractive, (3) this causes more people to die. While this sounds plausible, I see quite a few problems with the approach that you’re suggesting, which I’ll cover below. (I won’t go in-depth into the calculation you used since you already mentioned that it’s not accurate and I assume the point of your post is to advocate for starting a subdiscipline of economics, rather than providing a method for calculation.)
Use of VSL estimates
VSL estimates are intended be used to understand how people value small reductions in risk, not to predict the outcome of increased wages on deaths. Greater risk leads to higher pay, but higher pay doesn’t lead to this increase in deaths per se. For example, demand for risky jobs like firefighters isn’t very elastic (the number of firefighters society needs is more or less fixed), and even if that wasn’t the case, less qualified or experienced people may enter the field. I wouldn’t use the VSL for this purpose since the methods used to calculate it don’t establish this causal link.
Not a lot of people die in workplace accidents
I don’t think people taking riskier jobs, as the VSL approach would assume, is the primary negative impact of taxation. Rather, I think reducing people’s spendable income makes them less likely to buy healthy food, less likely to live in air-conditioned or heated houses, and less likely to be able to afford medical bills. Only a very small number of people actually die in accidents—let alone workplace accidents. So if we want to know the mortality effect of a tax, it would be more interesting to research questions such as: what is the effect of this tax on cardiovascular health (e.g. unable to buy healthy food) or lung health (e.g. air pollution).
Taxation is used to reduce mortality
Interestingly, having low income, low wealth, low education, and low social status are very strong determinants of early mortality. This is exactly what taxation is trying to tackle. If we take the data for my country (The Netherlands), for example, we see that more than half of all public spending goes to healthcare and social security, and another 12% goes to education. In short, taxation is mostly used to make healthcare affordable or to alleviate social determinants of mortality.
So no, I don’t think we can assume that taxation kills people.
People in poverty are mostly exempt from taxes
Looking at distributive effects is probably really important here. I can imagine that taxing people to the point that they enter poverty (as you suggested) makes things a lot worse for them. Most countries have some type of tax-free threshold under which you don’t have to pay income taxes. Low incomes are only taxed relatively little. Some taxes, like VAT on food, fall disproportionately on the poor since they spend a larger share of their income on food.
So, theoretically it’s possible that taxation causes poverty, and poverty causes deaths. But if we look at the top causes of global poverty, we see that poverty is mostly caused by things we can tackle by spending tax money: on safety nets and food programmes to stop hunger, on healthcare systems to improve access, on sanitation and clean water to improve hygiene and save time, on education to give kids a prosperous future, on infrastructure so that people can get to work, on creating jobs...
Summary
In summary, I’m in favour of researching the effects of taxation and public spending on mortality, but I expect the sign on most taxes to be negative (i.e. reducing mortality), at least when the tax incidence is not on people in poverty and public funds are spent on sensible projects. I think the method based on the VSL is probably not appropriate, but your proposal to have a government consider the effects of mortality makes sense since we can probably make a good guesstimate of the effects of a tax or government programme on social determinants of mortality.