the folks at the brookings tax policy center helped us put this together. these different groups of popcorn represent your income level. the bigger the bag, the bigger the income level of the group we're talking about. i want to use the popcorn to demonstrate how much of the total pie, how much of the total tax revenue is generated by each group. let's start over here with the little one. these are people who earn less than $30,000 a year. that, by the way, is about 44.8% of all households in the united states. they don't pay a lot in income tax. 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 tributes 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 two and a half scoops. they by the way pay an annual tax rate 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. a cnn poll finds 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 tacks 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. the top income earners in the country, the last bowl, the bowl of the richest among us and some of the bowl next to it pay about 36% of total income taxes while the top 10%, which would be the 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 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 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. when you have the poll that shows how many people think the tax code benefits the risk, this flies 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 those connected. those with lobbyists, tax lawyers, that's where you can make a difference, make it something everybody can 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 fairness, semblance of envy for the cheap seats. 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 earth, they don't have to earn that much money, can earn even less than that, make a lot of money through investments, dividends, through 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 that question to find out whether it'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, startup venture capital has been good for the company. i have to be honest, i say yes, capital gains lower, you open yourself up to logical consistency. should we incentivize home ownership, having children? >> we do. >> talk about -- >> we do incentivize home ownership. we spend a lot of money encouraging home ownership. if you get a mortgage you can deduct the interest you pay from 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. i don't think the tax code should be a tool of social engineering. it's a debate to have. when you talk about tax gains you can talk about incentivizing investment. when you ask about the contaminate 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 is fair then you're having a conversation that has no real end. that's a rabbit hole you do down. fair is simple. if you want to incentivize, that's a fair conversation, capital gains is the beginning of that conversation. >> let me ask you this in a different way. 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 invest it, and you get capital gains, dividends from your stocks, something lower wage earners 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 you earned at some point. now you're talking about the amount of money you've taken and invested in some area of society, which usually gets taxed again at some corporate rate. finally it creates a hopeful profit you would pay another profit 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 pay taxes numerous times. 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 code is a symptom of rich guy getting a 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 that approve the idea the rich, 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, popularity. if you think soaking the rich wasn't popular, ask the french revolution areas, ask them. it always been popular but that 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, thanks. a cnn commentator. whether you fear him, you cannot 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, fairness, unending conversation. everybody can have their opinion on the subject. >> did he just say sex? more on that man, including republicans, mitt romney pledging never to raise taxes. what we achieved here. what we learned here. and what we pioneered here. all goes here. the one. the accord. smarter thinking from honda. like in a special ops mission? you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep, you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering, web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account. 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 dollars. >> reporter: your money in fiscal year 2011, 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 insurance program, the biggest slice of the pie. the blue. social security one-fifth, 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, $0.06 of every dollar. the remaining was 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? 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 that secured pledges to never raise taxes from likely 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, imposed on today's dollars over $10 million a year, just going to hit 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, job creation, stable dollar. they say let's distract you with shiny things, which is fairness, an unending conversation. like sex everybody can have their opinion on it. >> 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 voters polled -- as you know they tend to be accurate -- more than half support it. >> 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 look 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 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 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 in november are you going to loosen the reins and let stuff get down. >> that was the question people were asking. 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, 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. what happened in 2011, $2.5 trillion 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 grounds state in november? that's next on "your $$$$$." buying this juicer online was unbelievable. what a bargain! [ female announcer ] sometimes a good deal turns out to be not such a good deal. but new bounty gives you value you can see. in this lab demo, one sheet of new bounty leaves this surface cleaner than two sheets of the leading ordinary brand. so you can clean this mess with half as many sheets. bounty has trap and lock technology to soak up big spills and lock them in. why use more when you can use less? new bounty. the clean picker upper. 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. evers 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 partly at the government's behest, partly themselves was due to the crisis. the president said to every constituency you have to sacrifice, creditors, 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 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 rather than several ceos. modestly this worked out as good as we can imagine. >> ratner said it took a crisis to turn it around. i want to show you how bad it was and how good it is with all big three profitable. start with bottom line. general motors lost $31 billion in 2008. look at 2011, up $7.6. ford in 2008 down $14.7 billion, 2011 up $20.2 billion. look at chrysler, 2011 numbers, down $660 million. we don't have 2008 numbers because chrysler paid a private equity firm to take the debt off its hands. but look at 2011, up $183 million. not close to competitors but in the right direction. let's look at the number of employees. that was part of the president's calculus, too. look how many jobs would have been lost. in 20082, 243,000 people employed, in 2008, 213,000. in 2011 they employed nearly 81,000 people. in choosing to bail out the auto industry, the president had half a million jobs at stake. that's only the automakers. doesn't include suppliers or dealerships or all those businesses that exist to supply those towns that make cars. there were plenty of critics about auto bailout including mitt romney who argued a structured bankruptcy could have achieved the same result without the massive cost to the government. i asked steven ratner about that. >> they were fundamentally wrong. there were only really two choices for the company. one version what we did, doesn't have to be exactly like what we did, the other was let them liquidate. there was no private capital. they would have closed l doors, fired their workers and gone out of business. >> nowhere in america is car manufacturing more important than michigan, a battleground state that could decide the next president. jim, the president bailed out the auto industry. it's very popular in michigan. he's not afraid to take a jab at his likely gop rival governor mitt romney who was against the bailout very clearly but still has deep roots in michigan. his father, george, was governor of the state. he was born there. how is this playing out in michigan? >> ali, it was surprising to see him go to michigan early on. if the president loses michigan it's a battleground state. it's sort of a leading democrat state. things don't look too well for the president come this november. it was not surprising in reaching out to voters in michigan that the president would highlight the fact he supported the bailout and his likely opponent mitt romney did not. as a matter of fact back in november 2008 the former massachusetts governor wrote an op-ed in the "new york times" titled "let detroit go bankrupt" in which he voiced his opposition to the bailout saying it would basically wipe out the automotive industry. though the president didn't mention mitt romney by name in dearborn this week, it was no secret who he was talking about. >> jim acosta reporting for you. next economists blame president obama at high gas prices. this week he blames wall street. i'll tell you why his argument doesn't hold up. and congressman dennis kucinich joins us. >> it's time to get serious about the rising price of gasoline. and it's time to get serious about invest