You are the one who said lives have a money value , so you give us a formula for calculating it, don't expect me to do you homework. Earning capacity was one method I pulled out of the air, there are many others, I never said it was valid , and you never gave an alternative.
My question to you is that as you think lives have a money value, what is your calculation method ? What dollar value do you put on your own life ? Petty insults will not be accepted.
I think this is getting a bit off topic, but since you're dwelling on the question and seem to need it addressed, let's look at it.
Obviously we can't easily calculate a figure like $200k or $5million or whatever, but if we're going to be honest and realistic, human lives do have a dollar value. That's not to say I like the reality or advocate it or want it to be the reality, it just is.
Maybe it would help you to see the reality if we look at extreme examples to demonstrate the principle. At one extreme, we could ask if you would pay a few dollars or few hours to save a 20 year old's life if they were needing some help. Sure, you probably would. Most of us would. On the other hand, would you spend all the money you had and/or all of your time for the rest of your life to save that person? Honestly, you probably wouldn't. Very few people would. We don't have an exactly figure on the price/value, but we can see that one does exist, blurry as it is.
Now, would you sell your home to pay for cancer treatment or surgery or a rescue effort to save your own 20 year old child? Very likely, many people would, probably most people. Would you do the same for your 95 year old grandfather? Let's not kid ourselves, you wouldn't, and almost no one would.
Again, we don't have an exact price, but one clearly does exist.
What about public funds? If we could save 2 people for a cost of $1,000 per person, would we do it? Sure, the public would demand it, the government wouldn't hesitate, no one would question the decision. What if it was $1,000,000 per person? There would be some debate, but it would depend on various things (circumstances of them needing the help, their age, etc). It would probably happen with a small amount of controversy. What about $10,000,000 per person? It's difficult to say, it would hang in the balance. What about a billion dollars per person? Nope, sorry, we don't know exactly what the figure is, but we sure as heck will not spend $2 billion saving two random people. Maybe, maybe, maybe if it was the prime minister or something, but for you or me, nope, it would be sorry, bye bye, he had a good life (or, we assume so *awkward avoidance of eye contact*).
If it was a foreigner we'd spend less than an Australian. If it was a pretty woman we'd spend less than if it was a fat ugly one (again, I'm not advocating it or saying it's right, it's just the reality which I know does exist). If it was a criminal we'd spend less than if it was a well-known philanthropist. 20 years ago if they were white we'd have spent more than if they were black. Today we'd spend more if they were black than if they were white.
There are different metrics you can use to calculate the value (economic value, sentimental value, community evaluation, personal evaluation, or simply the own person's ability to pay for themselves eg I have $xxx in money and assets at my disposal so that's what I'm worth, which is actually a common way to refer to a person's value). We could also use the metric of 'we have XXX resources to allocate, we will try to utilise it to give maximum benefit to as many people as possible, or alternatively, use it to benefit people as evenly as possible, and thus, we can say that we have $X to allocate to 'saving lives' and obviously if we spent half of that on one person which means we don't have those funds to save many others and they will now die, a person's life is worth less than half of $X. This last metric is something along the lines of what I'd personally use.
To say that we can not put a dollar value on human life is completely naive, and following this attitude we will immediately squander all of $X on the first case or cases which need it, leaving nothing left for the vast, vast majority of people who could have been helped so much more if a more realistic approach had been used.
But, you should not be using this as a distraction to your utterly abhorrent and inhuman comments earlier.