I’m always suspicious when I see a quote attributed to some historical figure that seems too neatly in tune with the preoccupations of today. Take this widely-cited quote, attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero in 63 BC
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt
What’s wrong with this? For a start, the concept of bankruptcy didn’t emerge until the Renaissance and neither did double-entry accounting, without which the concept of ‘balancing the budget’ makes no sense. The Roman Republic did not have anything that really corresponds to “officialdom” – there was no standing bureaucracy and most public offices were held for short terms by aristocratic figures like Cicero himself. And foreign aid was not something the Romans went in for. On the other hand, if you wanted a statement that perfectly encapsulated the views of a large group of Americans in the late 20th century, when this quote seems to have surfaced, you couldn’t do much better than this.
At a minimum, there’s some free translation being used here. But my guess is that the quote is entirely bogus. Does anyone have any info?
Instant update Yet again, Alan from Southerly Buster comes to my rescue. He writes: Everyone reliable seems to agree the Cicero quote is bogus. So is the Petronius quote.
John Quiggin 
the Petronius quote was in notes for the AGSM’s MBA course.
It is a good quote even if it isn’t true!
But what about this one, attributed to, er, Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus: “Introduce a broad tax on consumption, but not a cascading one. Excempt food if thee must [he studied English] to get it past those Senate rogues. Cut tax on the wealth creators, for without them there is no wealth. But the telecommunications system must be 100 percent sold my child. Otherwise, thy work is not done. Good bless.”
Do not spell exempt correctly.
Also, it’s “…if thou must…”. Thee is the accusative, so “…if thee must…” is like saying “…if me must…”, “…if them must…”, “…if him/her must…” or “…if us must…”.
But there is no problem with a cascading tax within a larger package, provided only that the whole package isn’t distorting. Run properly, the multiplier of the cascading doesn’t matter because the rates should be set low enough that the overall tax take is what the revenue needs. (The real problems with “Easytax” weren’t from that multiplier but from the distortions and – long term – incentives to structure businesses badly for tax purposes.)
Isn’t a cascading production tax what the French originally introduced as a VAT?
Warning: blatant blogslutting… I seem to be missing from your blogroll.
Blogslutting always works with me – you’re up (JQ)