My Problem with People Who Readily Accept Herman Cain’s 999 Tax Reform Plan.


This diary is a response to this good diary by “The Sophist” from which I quote in part:

<b>If You Assume The Policy Will Be Corrupted…</b>

First of all, if the base assumption is that no matter how great an idea might be, DC politicians will find a way to corrupt it… why is the 999 plan singled out for special treatment? What makes anyone think that Romney’s 87-page PDF Economic Plan won’t also be instantly corrupted and changed? Or the FairTax that many people are gung-ho for, claiming that it is superior to the 999 plan. Superior how, if the assumption is that Congresscritters will instantly transform it into a basket of giveaways and boondoggles? Or even a Flat Tax?

The second bolding in the quote was added by me and that is what I am addressing.

That answer is simple.  We agree with Herman Cain.  He says that the FairTax is where he intends to end up.  If it was not better why would he want to move past the 999 plan to get to the FairTax at a later date?  The skeptic FairTaxer inserts here “Or does he?”

I really can’t speak for all FairTax activists but I can point out something.   The FairTax enthusiasts are rather suddenly divided into two camps.  One large camp is generally OK with the 999 plan because they simply LOVE them some Herman Cain.  They apparently have listened to him for years and have grown to trust him.  They trust him to follow through on his plan.  They trust him when he says we will end up with the FairTax in the end.

Not everyone listens to Herman Cain on the radio and even within the ranks of those who do, there is a distrust of him because of his endorsement of Governor Mitt “Tail Spin” Romney last election.

The other camp is not so trusting.  Some even outright oppose his candidacy all together.  They think he has abandoned the same FairTax that he himself had said our economy needed.  They think he simply concocted a more palatable, watered down, have-it-both-ways FairTax-Lite plan merely to placate income tax supporters.  A lot of these people have not been listening to him on the radio.  They don’t trust him to be able to keep the liberal democrats and republicans in DC from redirecting his 999 plan.  They think we will end up in a worse taxation situation than we are currently in.  In  short, they pretty much agree with Dan Mitchell.  They don’t see the need in a watered down version that allows both a federal income tax and a federal sales tax at the same time. (h/t Aaron Gardner)

Here’s the pretty daisies found in Cain’s 999 tax reform plan (as I understand it):

The first “9″ in Cain’s 999 plan would leave more money in the average working person’s pay check.  Personally, I love this aspect because I happen to be one of those people.  As it is, employees are paying 5.65% FICA plus whatever their income tax rate is.  The employer more than match that with 7.65%.  All of that is done away with and replaced with 9%.

The second “9″ would be the new corporate tax rate.  It would be lowered to 9% from the current 35%.  This would make the USA much more competitive in the eyes of businesses looking for places to build new facilities.  That means more jobs because we will have less government interfering with cash flow.  In other words, the USA would become an instant magnet for investment. 9% is a drastically better rate.  Nevertheless, it should be zero.

The third “9″ would mean that more people have skin in the game because everyone who buys new things will pay the federal point-of-sale-consumption tax.  It is not a hidden VAT tax either so people will see the exact tax when they make new purchase.

One more really great thing about it is that filing our taxes will become very simple.  People like myself will not have to pay several hundreds of dollars every year merely to file taxes.

I agree that The Sophist is right about citizens needing to stay vigilant  as voters.  I think we citizens have been pretty vigilant since Obama was elected but that did not stop us from having ObamneyCare dropped upon us like an anvil, did it?

Here comes some nasty little thickets (as I understand it):

I don’t doubt that Republicans will hold the house and hopefully Cain (or Perry) will be the next President.  If it is Cain and he gets his plan implemented, none of us can say what will happen in 2014.  The pendulum will swing back sooner or later and conservatives will have even less control than they do now.  All the vigilance in the world will not stop the liberal democrats and republicans from raising the tax rates.

Under Cain’s 999 plan, both taxes would be legal and there to be abused at will by an insolvent and out of control federal government.

The income tax can be abused right now because we actually have it now.  In contrast, right now, the sales tax cannot be abused because we simply do not have it.

Under the FairTax, the entire income tax is thrown out and it is not replaced with any form of an income tax at all.  Under the FairTax, the federal income tax is replaced with a federal point-of-sale consumption tax on only new products and services.  The FairTax does every good thing that Cain’s plan does except it does every one of those good things much better.

Superior Controls:

Within the FairTax bill is a provision that stops the income tax from being collected while the FairTax is law.  There is also a sunset provision that says that in seven years (I think this should be changed to 2 years) the 16th Amendment must be repealed.  (This must be more than a simple repeal.  It must be an aggressive repeal.)  If the 16th is not repealed within the set time, the FairTax goes away and the income tax comes back.  That last part will not happen.  After people see what their pay check looks like and they see what an economy looks like that has not been being slowly poisoned to death by the income tax, most FairTax supporter’s feel very comfortable betting that the 16th Amendment will be repealed.

Cain’s plan to bridge from where we are now to the FairTax is admirable but it is also very dangerous.

Mr. Cain needs to do a much better job courting the FairTax activists who have battled the “We’ll end up with both!!!!” meme for so long.  His plan is exactly what we have argued would not happen.

One more comment should be made clear to Mr. Cain: All it would take for this 999 plan to sink like a lead balloon would be for Governor Perry to endorse the FairTax as written the way Huckabee did last time around.  Why vote for a candidate touting the FairTax-Lite when you can vote the real thing?  ;)

 

 

Is it a three man race yet? Go Herman Cain!

 

P.S. if you live near or in West Tennessee, please come to the Herman Cain Campaign stop on October 14th in Bartlett.


Category: , , , , , , ,

RSS feed

37 Comments Leave a comment

Three plans

Craigpennsylvania (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 2:50PM EST (link)

Jim – It’s simple: The Fair Tax, The Flat Tax and the 9-9-9 plans are ALL far superior to what we have now. I would take any of the three.

There are some people who would pass on the 9-9-9 plan and keep our current system just because his/her favorite plan (usually The Fair Tax) isn’t the “winner”.

Different people have different goals.

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 3:57PM EST (link)

For those who have a primary goal of repealing the 16th Amendment, only one option works after the repeal.

The other two simply do not allow it.

Repealing the 16th Amendment is the best option

Craigpennsylvania (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 4:14PM EST (link)

However, one must have other options. I have been a contributing member at FairTax for several years. By contributing, I send them money every year.

That being said, it’s also important to recognize the difficulty of getting 67 Senators and 38 states to go for repealing the 16th amendment.

So – I will take 9-9-9 as a solid second choice. Should 9-9-9 become law, I will still work towards eliminating the 16th Amendment.

Those people who think anything short of repeal of the 16th Amendment as being unacceptable are going to allow the current system to remain intact.

For a sports analogy, it reminds me of some Buffalo Bills fans who stated they would rather have a 3-13 team than see another Super Bowl losing team. Be careful what you wish for, true?

True enough... n/t

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 4:30PM EST (link)
 
 
 

The 9-9-9 plan is a step in the right direction but increases tax on the poor

A_Texan (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 5:07PM EST (link)

1. It’s a good idea, in many respects–and keep in mind it will abolish the payroll and self-employment tax. So it creates one tax but destroys another.

2. Still, it will result in a net tax increase for the working poor, by combining an income tax and a sales tax–the latter of which is regressive. Besides the arguable unfairness of increasing taxes on those people who are most struggling, it also won’t sell politically. Lots of GOP voters will be hurt badly.

3. Hence, I favor the plan, but with a generous exemption for the first, say $30,000 on income, and per-child deductions.

Barack Obama: The most inexperienced, far-left candidate the Democratic Party has ever dared to nominate to be our President.

That's a feature, not a bug.

acat (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 6:05PM EST (link)

Everyone who benefits from our national defense, from our federal highway system, from our environmental proection laws, from our voter registration laws should pay *something* to support the upkeep thereof.

Further those wo make below $30k/yr pay no income tax (although they do pay SS tax) today. They may also qualify for the EIC “refund”, i.e. an enticement to get them to file a 1040 in the first place. Many prisoners file 1040s just to get the EIC.

Further, the sales tax would be on new products only, so .. those who want to shop around, shop thrift stores and eBay and buy used can avoid the sales tax quite easily.

I could see adding an exemption to the sales tax for food and medicine and medical services, but .. otherwise?

Getting everyone to contribute something to the cost of government will, IMO, go a long way toward getting more people on the small-government bandwagon, and that’s a win.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

 
 

Just simplify the tax system

Kyle-MI (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 5:12PM EST (link)

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.”
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams

The quote reminds me of the whole question on the taxation system. I get the feeling that, no matter what we propose to replace the income tax system with, it will eventually end up as messed up as the current income tax. I would just rather simplify the current system. I don’t think there is any system the politicians can’t mess up. Eternal vigilance is the price of a simple tax system.

 

9-9-9 becomes 39-39-39 under Dems.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 7:16PM EST (link)

It just gives them yet another way to dig into our pockets. I agree with you, we should never give them another way to tax us, no matter how good it might look now.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

True, 'night .. but how is that different from today?

acat (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 7:23PM EST (link)

Carter increased taxes.
Clinton increased taxes.
Obama increased taxes.

This problem isn’t with Cain’s 9-9-9, the problem is with Dems.

I don’t mind 9-9-9 because it broadens the base of taxpayers. If we lock it down, require 3/4 in the House and 2/3 in the Senate to increase *any* rate, it’s as good as we’re going to get it short of a constitutional amendment.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

It's different because

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 7:44PM EST (link)

now they can just do 39-39. That’s why I don’t want to give them another way to tax. See Europe & the VAT tax.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

kowalski.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 7:56PM EST (link)

There’s no way it’ll pass with a 2/3rds or 3/4ths modification requirement. I doubt it would pass without it, but my fear is they’d pass it with just a 50% requirement and we’ve just handed the democrats another way to tax us. No thanks.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

What's the alternative, 'night?

acat (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 8:03PM EST (link)

I agree with your fears and concerns.

If we do nothing, though, we’re going to have increasing income tax rates, removing the cap on SS taxes, and increases in tarrifs and fees. We’re also going to go on shrinking the percentage of americans who support the federal government. We’re approaching 50% not paying to support the federal behemoth, and that creates an unstable social situation.

If we try the 9-9-9, we are likely to end up somewhere over 9-9-9, of course. We will also expand the percentage of people who pay to support the federal behemoth to 100% since even someone who pays no income tax must buy *something*.

I would be happy to discuss other alternatives, including doing nothing, but .. the longer we leave the social situation unstable like this, the harder it is to correct, and worse, the more likely the correction will spark an explosion.

I’m not a fan of the FairTAX, but .. the current situation is not sustainable.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Simplifying the current system would be sufficient.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 8:15PM EST (link)

FDT had some good detailed plans around that 4 years ago. It would have a much better chance of passing. There’s a lot of room to work with the current system which would improve things. Sure, when the democrats are in they’ll screw it up, but at least we wouldn’t have given them another way to tax us which would increase the burden even more.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Link please, NightTwister.

acat (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 8:21PM EST (link)

I’m intrigued.

I want to know whether these plans expand the percentage of taxpayers supporting the behemoth.

One of the reasons small government has a tough row to hoe is because so many don’t pay anything… voting themselves bread and circuses .. that they don’t see the problem.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Sorry, it was all taken down when he dropped out.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 8:25PM EST (link)

I saved all the PDFs and have them stored, but they aren’t available online.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Here's a cut-and-paste.

NightTwister (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 8:36PM EST (link)

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. The Thompson plan ensures the following:
o Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
o Preserving the $1000 child tax credit,which was doubled from $500 per child.
o Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
o Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savings plans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
o Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
o Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.
2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax.
3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate.
The Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world’s leading economies.
5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing.
6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules.
7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts.
The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Interesting. I'll admit I don't like losing the mortgage deduction...

acat (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 10:53PM EST (link)

but otherwise it’s a start.

That said, what it doesn’t really do is to increase the number of taxpayers, it’s just tinkering with how much is taken from the same folk who are paying now.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Sure it does.

NightTwister (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 6:28AM EST (link)

There’s more than one way to increase the number of taxpayers. One way is to lower deductions so they pay more. Another way is to get the economy going again so everyone’s making more, people are moving out of the bottom, and therefore paying more taxes.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

so .. inflation will fix it, NightTwister?

acat (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 10:16AM EST (link)

Seriously, I’ve stated repeatedly that, in my opinion, everyone who benefits from the federal government, from the armed services, from the freeway system, etc. etc., needs to pay *something* to support it.

You’re right, there are more than one way to get more people paying, but your ideas are a percentage point or three at most, and given the popularity of the mortgage deduction and of the charitable donation deduction, I don’t see how the Fred! plan would ever pass in its’ current form.

Herman’s 9-9-9 immediately increases the percentage participating to darn near 100%.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

The economy isn't a zero-sum affair.

NightTwister (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 5:40PM EST (link)

That’s the liberal’s argument. When the economy is healthy and people are working, they pay taxes. This is how it should be.

And I don’t think those in real poverty should have to pay. Give the man a break when he’s down, give him an opportunity, and then he’ll be a contributing member again.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

Where did I suggest I thought it was zero-sum, Night'?

acat (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 6:19PM EST (link)

What I’m suggesting, and what you still seem to be ignoring, is the danger of the growing number of people who pay nothing.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

I'm talking about reducing them...nt.

NightTwister (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 9:37PM EST (link)

no text

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

What I see, 'Night, is tinkering with the current code...

acat (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 11:36PM EST (link)

Moving the percentage of payers back to where we were in what, the 1980s?

Not good enough, ‘Night.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Acat, did you see Newt's "new" tax reform idea?

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 8:29AM EST (link)

It leaves the system alone but offers a flat tax option for those who want it. I guess he must be using HR-1040 as a platform. How does this fix anything at all?

It is a plan that protects the lobbyists and the politicians who use the tax code to further their careers.

The income tax has been a poison that has been slowly killing our economy for over 100 years and Newt wants to make sure nothing happens to it.

I have to admit that Cain’s 999 plan is by far the best one being presented by the candidates so far. I’m really wanting to see what Perry comes up with.

 

Improve the economy.

NightTwister (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 9:00AM EST (link)

The more people that prosper, the more that pay taxes. It seems like a really simple formula to me.

I can tell you this. If Cain were the nominee, and he rolled out his tax plan, there will be people howling from the rooftops that Cain wants to give tax breaks to the rich on the backs of poor people.

You and I can both want more people to pay taxes, but doing it this way will simply give the left ammunition. It’s not a winning sale to independents.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

So, instead of saying why it won't work, 'Night...

acat (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 4:39PM EST (link)

How about making an alternate proposal?

How does Night Twister propose to get to 100% of citizens supporting their government?

You’ve already stated you’re uncomfortable with taxing the poor, so .. let me be even more fair – you’re welcome to adjust for those whose *gross* income, adjusted for locale (suggest using www.city-data.com to adjust your locale to others, YMMV) falls below the poverty line.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

I already posted an alternative.

NightTwister (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 5:14PM EST (link)

And I’m done with this. I made my case for why I won’t support Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It’s not necessary to me that you be convinced.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

No, you didn't post an alternative that meets the metrics.

acat (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 5:20PM EST (link)

You posted Fred(!)’s plan.

While it’s a good plan, it does not shift the burden, it just tinkers around the edges.

You’ve also repeatedly called for improving the economy. While that is also a good plan, without changing the tax code its’ still just tinkering around the edges.

I have to conclude that you don’t see the problems I’m seeing.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

I guess not...nt.

NightTwister (Diary) Friday, September 30th at 6:05PM EST (link)

no_text

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Exactly! Once any new taxation scheme is

freentn Thursday, September 29th at 11:43PM EST (link)

enacted, the politicians always raise the rates.

 
 

The VAT (vehicle for another tax)

explodinghead (Diary) Wednesday, September 28th at 9:55PM EST (link)

I agree with Jim. Be realistic, the people who read or comment on this site are politoholics (made that up myself, better than poli-nuts!)
This national awakening of the people is not going to last long enough or be broad-based enough to get the 16th amendment repealed. A 9% national sales tax now will edge up every time the Dems are in power, or the RINOs feel like reaching across the aisle. I think Fred Thompsons proposals are a good start. No new taxes! Don’t feed the tax-hog he will eat all your money and then come looking for more.

Sorry, that idea is the worst short of doing nothing.

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 9:14AM EST (link)

It is certainly a heavy progressive and graduated income tax. It does almost nothing except make lobbyist drool over the money they will make with the tax code again.

The best I can tell is that Fred Thompson’s chief economic adviser was Karl Marx.

I wish people would not call a progressive graduated income tax flat.

 
 

Cain is just being a businessman - which is a GOOD THING

Tom Anderson (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 9:18AM EST (link)

Anyone who knows anything about business knows you can’t make wholesale changes to a product or service without being able to explain the “why” of it to the consumer. Even if they understand it, too big a jump at once will spark anger and revolt.

Cain, who has been a big promoter of the Fair Tax on his radio show for years, realizes that the jump from the current system to the Fair Tax in one fell swoop is too big a bite for the general public to swallow. This is because they have been misled on it by those who want to preserve their power – politicians, lobbyists, unions, etc.

It is only by an incremental approach that people will learn the true merits of the consumption tax as a replacement for the income tax. By blending the two temporarily, people will see which one is better and will be primed to accept the Fair Tax in its entirety, allowing the removal of the income tax completely.

This incremental implementation is simply applying a private sector business model to a public sector problem – exactly why we need a candidate with a strong business background.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke

Tom, I understand what you are saying.

Jim Tomasik (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 9:27AM EST (link)

I’m just concerned that he will not be able to follow through due to things that are beyond his control, that’s all.

I’m glad you made this defense of Cain’s plan. It is the best one I’ve seen so far.

 
 

9-9-9 is better than the Fair Tax

Freedoms Truth (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 2:16PM EST (link)

Advocates for the “Fair Tax” have an ‘idee fixe’ that there is only ‘one true solution’ to reforming taxes. After extensive study, watching candidates lose elections over support for ’30% taxes on working families’ and looking at the problems inherent with the massive govt welfare check aka Fair Tax rebate, I concluded that the Fair Tax would just never happen.

And that even if it would, it couldnt be done in one shot. I came to the conclusion – some years ago – that moving the tax base towards consumption could only be done incrementally. My idea was based on these principles:
1. The Federal Government Costs too much, spends too much and taxes too much. Tax reform should include tax reductions.
2. We need a simpler, flatter, lower rate tax system.
3. We need to shift taxes to tax production less and consumption more
4. We need to fix entitlements through choice
5. We need legislative and constitutional protections for taxpayers to limit tax hikes, spending hikes and runaway deficits.

The solution I developed ended up looking like this:
15% – personal income ($100,000 exemption level for family of 4, so only top 15-20% pay); corporate income; cap gains
15% – import tariff; energy excise taxes
5% – BTT/VAT/Federal sales tax
10% – soc insurance tax; all visible to wage payer

I also added the idea of a Universal Savings Account for tax-free savings.

The key point is NOT to focus on specific implementations, but to look at the broad fundamentals and ensure the tax reform satisfies those needs.

The most valid criticism to a plan to add a national sales tax without repealing the 16th amendment is the concern that it becomes the “Vehicle for Added Taxation” … the solution is TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS.

Repealing the 16th amendment is a pipe dream. You will not get many or even any Democrats to agree.
That makes the full-bore Fair Tax another pipe dream. hence, a partial movement to consumption taxes, perhaps focussed on energy and imports or a broad based BTT/VAT/Sales Tax, would work.

Kowalski - the link

Freedoms Truth (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 2:17PM EST (link)

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamental-tax-reform-15-solution.html

 
 

Thanks, Jim T.

Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary) Thursday, September 29th at 11:57PM EST (link)

I appreciate the straightforward, honest presentation of the pros and cons without tearing down the candidate.

At this point, I’m on board with flat or fair, enacted quickly or incrementally. The present system is a disaster, and while I like our accountant, I’d prefer to spend that money on shoes.

Would you agree that if the corporate rate is 9% or the much preferred 0%, it would also mean more money in the pockets of employees via wages, bonuses, benefits and raises? The more profits a company makes, the more they share, right? This would be a redistribution of wealth I could support.

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things. (John 4:25)