So how about giving us some mathematical model(s) that support your claims on inheritance tax and the so called definition on "progressive tax".

What you said is exactly correct in the first statement above and therefore why did you mention about morals when replying my quote on the subject of subsidies?

You claim you're not religious and yet you said it is morally correct to give more to one group than the other. And as far as I know, most religions advocate equality and encourage charity but never imposed on its followers to take from the rich so that the poor will have more than the rich. Therefore you may think you're an expert on economics but please refrain from commenting on religion and moral issues here.

I am personally aware of rich Chinese (of taoist faith and Christians) who contribute ( or as you term it sacrifice which is inappropriate as no mainstream religion impose on its followers to sacrifice for others ) a lot of their time and money and those who can't afford to contribute money, they contribute their time and energy to their place of worship for all to use regardless of their social standing. Therefore it is inappropriate for one to link the poor or rich or whomever to religious issues. 

In every community here in Malaysia, you will find that the local Chinese businessmen contribute a lot of their wealth to schools (for the benefit of all races) and therefore the rich in this country have been and will continue to contribute to society regardless of whatever tax that may be imposed. That's true progressive action (new defination by yours truly  ) by the rich that is not subjected to government misuse.

wankongyew, I do think you are smart (but too assumptious) and would like you to answer the question thrown to you earlier as to why you think our government abolished Capital Gain Tax. Are you a Malaysian in the first place?

Once again, this is a political issue dealing with the specifics of the current government of Malaysia. The subject of the thread should be about inheritance taxes only, divorced from speculation about whether or not the funds earned from the tax will be put to good use. I'm not going to reply to this or any further statements that tries to tie the subject of inheritances taxes together with the perceived evilness of the government, nor about which race will benefit from the taxes.
I said "mathematically precise definition". I did not in any way refer to mathematical models. In my own words, I also defined a progressive tax as one in which the rich would have to pay more, not only as an absolute sum, but as a proportion of their income and wealth, compared to the poor. This is now the third time that I have posted this definition.

But if you prefer, the following is the definition from Wikipedia:
As for the progressivity of inheritance taxes, there is a wealth of papers on the subject. For example, the following articles talk about the various taxes in effect in the US and their relative progressivity:

From this paper, for example, I quote:
Similarly, from this website, I quote:
I also think that it is odd that charity is used as an argument against inheritance taxes. If anything, the most charitable donors are the ones most in favor of them, for example, from this news article:
But I guess the problem is that in Malaysia everyone wants to talk only about how evil the BN government is, which is not interesting to me because there is nothing new to be found there. But no one wants to talk about policy implementation details which are interesting to me. For example, what do you think the inheritance tax rate should be? What do you think the exemption amount should be? Would you be happier with an inheritance tax instead of the GST? What about lower income tax rates in exchange for a GST? Apart from making it known that I support inheritance taxes, these are the sorts of questions I was originally most interested in talking about. But then I didn't start this thread anyway.