in fact, generally speaking they get back 4.8%. i'm going to put a few kernels into their pot because they are not paying taxes. let's look at another group. this bag represents people who earn between $30 and $100,000 a year. that's about 40% of households in the united states. this group represents a contribution of 18%. 18% of the total personal tax revenues come from here. i'm going to put about two handfuls of popcorn in the bowl to represent the taxes they pay. this bag represents people who earn between $100,000 and a million dollars a year. $100,000 to a million a year. that's about 15% of u.s. households. guess what? this group contributes more than 60% to the total pie. i'm going to at that in, about six handfuls. you've got three, four, five, six and a few extras. that's how much this group -- people who earn between $100,000 and a million dollars put that much into the total pie. now let's talk about the group president obama is referring to when he talks about the buffett rule. people who earn more than a million dollars a year. right now this group contributes 25% to the total tax revenue. so we'll give it about 2 1/2 scoops. they, by the way, pay an annual tax rate -- you probably heard this -- of about 20%. so when you look at the amount groups contribute to total personal income tax revenues in the united states, you'll see the lowest income americans don't generally contribute, about 45% of americans pay no income tax and are net recipients of income tax or federal moneys. this group, 30 to $100,000 contributes 18%. people earning between $100,000 and a million contribute 63%. and people earning over a million dollars contribute about 24%. now, let's take this discussion a little further. will cain is a cnn contributor with a bit of a conservative bent. good friend of mine. will, good to see you. will, the rich contribute an awful lot of popcorn. as we just saw. but a new cnn poll finds that seven in ten americans believe the tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers. that certainly seems to be behind president obama's push to raise taxes on millionaires through this buffett rule. you say that has more to do with envy and less to do with sensible tax policy. >> i do say that. i say that for different reasons. i love the popcorn display. i would build upon that to say, consider this -- the top 1% of income earners in our country, which would encompass your last bowl, the richest among us and some of bowl next to it, pay about 36% of total income taxes while the top 10%, which would be your last bowl, the richest bowl and most of the next bowl, pay 70% of total income taxes. what is fair, ali? for them to pay 100%? this definition of fairness gets really hard to define. >> let's talk about it for a second. there's a real discussion, should we be talking about the tax code as being fair or being efficient? what's your sense of if we're all agreeing we don't love this tax code, what should it represent? should the rich pay more? should everybody pay the amount? what's your thought. >> first of all, i don't think it's that subjective of an interpretation. what is fair is this -- when you have the poll that shows how many people think the tax code benefits the risk, this statistics fly in the face of that. one thing the tax code does it's so riddled with exceptions and exemptions, it becomes like swiss cheese. who does that benefit? we want to say the rich but really benefits those are connected. those with lobbyists, tax accountants and lawyers. that's where you can make a more fair tax code by simplifying it by making it something that so many of us understand. my complaint is, your reference to buffett rule and president obama that doesn't solve any problems, just makes it more complex for some arbitrary definition of fairness that i think is based on some semblance of envy for playing to the cheap seats. saying we'll get this solved. we'll play to the rich guys. >> let's ask this, one of the reasons the president picked that million dollars and above, people at that level of wealth -- and you don't have to earn that much money, you can earn less -- they make their money through investments, dividends, capital gains which people who are at lower income levels generally can't participate in. if you're a working stiff in this country, your money that you earn goes toward consumption, goes toward what you do on a daily basis. there's sense you can't get into the place in life where you can benefit from a lower tax rate. is that fair? >> i think you have to answer this question to find out whether or not that's fair. what's the purpose of the tax code? is the purpose of the tax code to raise revenue for the government to pay for its expenditures? i think most people say yes. is the purpose of the tax code to influence behavior? it certainly has become that. a child tax credit. >> do you disagree with that? >> to some degree, ali. when you talk about capital gains we have to have a debate do you want to incentivize investment? has investment in things like venture capital and start-up businesses been a good thing for this country? i have to be honest, i say yes, and therefore capital gains should be lower, then you open yourself up to logical consistency. should we incentivize home ownership, having children? >> we do. we do incentivize home ownership. we spend a lot of money encouraging home ownership by saying if you get a mortgage you can deduct the interest that you pay from your taxes. what that does is create a home ownership culture that says it's better to own a home than rent a home. guess what, the united states doesn't have a higher rate of home ownership than canada or germany, countries that don't offer that sort of thing. at the same time we want, need certain industries to be here. should we not use the tax code to say if you invest into this industry, put money into this industry, we'll encourage that by allowing you a bit of a tax break? >> i don't like that. because i don't think the tax code should be a tool of social engineering. it's an honest debate to have. when you talk about capital gains, you can talk about incentivizing investment. when you ask about the capital gains, it unfairly benefits the rich. the capital gains isn't about that, not playing favoritism. if you start seeing tax code overall as this tool for morality, evening the playing field, this tool for creating what you think might be fair, then you're having a conversation that has no real end. that's a rabbit hole you go down. fair is simple. if you want to have a debate about what you do and do not incentivize, that's a fair conversation. capital gains is the beginning of that conversation. >> let me ask this to you one different way. >> okay. >> if you are a wage earner, you pay a certain rate of tax. if your money, your wealth, the money you derive comes from the fact you have more money, and, hence, you can invest it and you get capital gains and dividends from your stocks, something that the lower wage earners can't do, you pay less money on that income. tell me why the average person watching this should think that's equitable. or are you saying equitable has nothing to do with it? >> i would say this. the reason that would be equitable, the reason i would defend capital gains as equitable is this. you've already paid taxes on your income that you've earned through a wage at some point. now you're talking about the amount of money you've taken and placed into an investment, some productive use of society. then it gets taxed again at some corporate rate. finally it creates a hopeful profit you would pay another tax on. we as a society said let's treat that differently than income. i'd say, i'd take some exception to say it's unequitable. you've paid taxes on it numerous times and we're trying to incentivize investment. now, i've been honest with you in this conversation. i realize that opens you up to using the tax code for all sorts of social engineering. i don't think the capital gains tax rate is just some symptom of rich guys getting in an equitable benefit that poorer people don't get. >> square this up for my politically, the fact is you saw the numbers. you you saw the number of people who approve of the idea that the rich, people earning more than a million dollars a year, should pay higher taxes. an overwhelming number of democrats support that. a very large majority of independents and even a majority of republicans support that idea. this is a winning idea for president obama and a losing idea for mitt romney. >> well, great. so politics plays to cheap seats, it plays to popularity. if you think soaking the rich wasn't popular, ask the french revolutionaries, it worked out for them. soaking the rich has always been popular, but it doesn't mean it's right. i'm not telling you the best thing to do politically i'm telling you the best thing to do that is right. >> will cain is a cnn commentator. grover norquist, whether you love him or fear him, you can't deny his influences on your taxes. what does he think about president obama's focus on fairness? >> they can't play to economic growth, they can't play to job creation, they can't speak to stable dollar, so they say let's distract you with shiny things, which is fairness, which is an unending conversation. like sex, everybody can have their own opinion on the subject. >> did he just say sex? more with that man who has republicans including mitt romney, pledging to never raise taxes. ♪ i've discovered gold. [ female announcer ] roc® retinol... the gold standard in anti-aging. clinically proven to give 10 years back to the look of skin. nothing's better than gold. [ female announcer ] roc® retinol correxion deep wrinkle night cream. how math and science kind of makes the world work. in high school, i had a physics teacher by the name of mr. davies. he made physics more than theoretical, he made it real for me. we built a guitar, we did things with electronics and mother boards. that's where the interest in engineering came from. so now, as an engineer, i have a career that speaks to that passion. thank you, mr. davies. ♪ ♪ wow... ♪ [ female announcer ] sometimes, all you need is the smooth, creamy taste of werther's original caramel to remind you that you're someone very special. ♪ werther's original caramels. ♪ fiona here was just telling me that ford dealers se nssible? well, we purchase 3 million a year. you just sold one right now didn't you? that's correct. major brands. 11 major brands. oop,there goes another one. well we'll beat anybody's advertised price. and you just did it right there, what's that called? the low price tire guarantee. wait for it, there goes another one. get a $100 rebate, plus the low price tire guarantee during the big tire event. look at that. it's happening right there every five seconds. your not going to run out are you? no. on december 21st polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd, and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans? all right. today when we talk about taxes, the debate in washington has started to center around what is fair. it's also important to remember the real point of taxes, the way they started income taxes was to pay for things. fairness wasn't central to the discussion when taxes were invented. christine romans has a look at what you get for your tax dollars. >> reporter: the government took $2.3 trillion of your money in fiscal year 2011. so what are you getting for all that tax money? for starters, it's not enough. the federal government spent $3.6 trillion meaning they had to borrow $1.3 trillion. don't worry. if you pay taxes, you'll be paying the interest. again, where did that money go? let's start with medicare, medicaid and children's health insurance program. that's the biggest slice of the pie, the blue right here. social security claimed one-fifth of the total budget, that's yellow. the wars in afghanistan and iraq cost $159 billion last year, a fifth of the total spent on defense. now, spending on safety net programs designed to keep americans out of poverty dropped last year. the interest on our debt amounted to about 6%. that's the purple wedge there, six cents of every dollar. the remaining 19% was split between infrastructure, science education, benefits for retired federal employees and veterans. that's how your tax dollars are spent. ali. >> thanks, christine. if you're waiting for tax reform don't hold your breath? why? lots of reasons, of course. but it might be because one of the most powerful fiscal conservative voices in this country won't allow room for compromise. and he's not an elected official. his name is grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. that's a group which has secured pledges to never raise taxes from likely republican presidential candidate mitt romney as well as almost all the republicans elected in congress. he warns those who break the pledge will pay a political price. grover and i sat down to discuss his new book "debacle, obama's war on jobs and growth." what we can do now for our future. first i wanted to know where grover norquist stands on all this talk on tax fairness. >> a lot of impetus to impose the income tax, the personal income tax in the united states, was imposed on people whose income was in today's dollars over $10 million a year. it was going to hit just a few. i would argue the reason why left of center politicians who want the government bigger play to fairness. they can't play to economic growth, they can't play to job creation. they can't speak to a stable dollar. so they say let's distract you with shiny things, which is fairness, which is an unending conversation. like sex, everybody can have their own opinion on the subject. there's no right and wrong on fairness. >> brand-new poll taken april 13th to 15th favoring a 30% tax for the very wealthy, millionaires, the buffett rule. 90% of democrats support the idea. 69% of independents. even a majority of republican registered voters who were polled -- and as you know, these polls tend to be very accurate -- more than half of registered republicans actually support the idea. why? >> polls look like that in washington state at the beginning of the campaign to impose an income tax on the rich. as they had a conversation the numbers flipped from two to one for it to two to one against it. you take other polls, rasmussen has done an entire book on polling on taxes. as first glance some of the questions he asked looked like that. you go oh, that's disappointing. then you ask the second question, if they raise the taxes on rich people, are they coming after you next? >> that's a little bit of fear mongering. why is that the logic it would be the case? >> minimal tax, personal income tax. >> there are people that point to you as the man behind the inability of elected officials to soften their positions and negotiate and compromise in order to get deals done because they are worried about what will happen because they signed your pledge. frequently a few say they no longer feel bound by your pledge because it doesn't let them get work done. if we're back in the mixed scenario after november, are you going to loosen the reins and let stuff get done? >> that was the question people were asking a year ago. all of 2011 we had that discussion. some said we can't get spending reduced unless we give democrats tax increases. some of us were old enough to remember 1982 and 1990, you put tax increases on the table promises of spending reduction evaporate, disappear. '82, taxes went up, spending didn't go down $3. it went up $2 for every tax increase. '90 it didn't go down, it went up. in both cases you not only didn't get as much spending restraint as promised, you got none. you got negative spending restraint. what happened in 2011, $2.5 trillion in spending restraint over the next decade. you have to police that but you would any agreement and not a single dollar in tax increase. >> in 2008 governor mitt romney said if you bail out the auto industry, you can kiss it good-bye. i spoke with the man behind the bailout this week and found out what he thinks more than three years later. >> they were fundamentally wrong. mitt romney in saying there was some private sector alternative was fundamentally wrong. >> will romney's words cost him a key battle ground state in november? just like e-ither. or ei-ther. or e-conomical. [ chuckling ] or ec-onomical. pa-tato, po-tato, huh? actually, it's to-mato, ta-mato. oh, that's right. [ laughs ] [ car door shuts ] [ male announcer ] visit your local chevy dealer today. now very well qualified lessees can get a 2012 chevy cruze ls for around $159 per month. e.p.a. estimated 36 miles per gallon highway. dave, i've downloaded a virus. yeah. ♪ dave, where are we on the new laptop? it's so slow! i'm calling dave. [ telephone rings ] [ male announcer ] in a small business, technology is all you. that's why you've got us. at the staples pc savings event, for a limited time get up to $200 off select computers. staples. that was easy. for a limited time get up to $200 off select computers. [ traffic passing ] ] ♪ [ music box: lullaby ] [ man on tv, indistinct ] ♪ [ lullaby continues ] [ baby coos ] [ man announcing ] millions are still exposed to the dangers... of secondhand smoke... and some of them can't do anything about it. ♪ [ continues ] [ gasping ] i tell you what i can spend. i do my best to make it work. i'm back on the road safely. and i saved you money on brakes. that's personal pricing. when president obama took office in 2009, the american auto industry was losing billions of dollars a year. gm alone lost almost $31 billion in 2008. now, this week i spoke with steven ratner. he was the man the president picked to be the czar that would save the auto industry. >> when i took the job, i wasn't at all sure we had a solution to it, but i finally convinced myself i couldn't make it any worse and therefore i'd give it a try. i did satisfy myself pretty early on it was an important role for the domestic u.s. auto industry. >> pretty incredible when you see where it is today, obviously ford leading that pack to be in better shape but they were in better shape then anyway. but to see what american carmakers have managed to come up with in the last few years with the government's help. kind of impressive. >> it's sad but it's true it took a crisis. the changes that were instituted partly at the government's behest, partly by the companies themselves were only possible because there was a crisis and the president was able to say to every constituency, you all have to sacrifice. the uaw sacrificed, the creditors, the spa suppliers. it took this kind of crisis to work. >> with the benefit of time, what would have done differently in those deals? >> i don't think there's a lot we would have done differently. i have said publicly that even a little more sacrifice by the stakeholders might have been a good thing. i wish we had a quicker, clearer management plan for general motors than having several different ceos. but by and large, i would say modestly this worked out as good as we can imagine. >> ratner said it took a crisis to turn this industry around. i want to show you how bad it was and remarkably how good it is now with all the big three profitable. start with bottom line. general motors lost $31 billion in 2008. look at 2011, they're up $7.6 billi billion. ford in 2008 down $14.7 billion, 2011 up $20.2 billion. look at chrysler, the 2006 numbers, down $660 million. we don't