Teams transcript, Feldman's eleven screenshots

# Teams screenshots — Group A (Feldman window)

Owner hint: Feldman account per file names. OWNER = right-aligned messages with a bare time stamp. Message text is verbatim; ⏎ marks a line break inside one bubble. See group-A.json for full detail (formatting notes, attachment descriptions, preview text).


## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_19_1.png

- Original: 6__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_19 1.png
- Header: Mearhoff, Sarah, Sameroff, Rebecca
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: no

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — [not visible] [CUT TOP] [reactions: 😔 ×1 (outlined)] (note: Only the reaction chips of a message above the visible area are shown (left/other-participant side); the message itself is above the top edge.)
— October 19 —
[2] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/19 12:38 PM — First of all, Jake, great job on this op-ed. FYI to you both: I've reached out to Amanda on the 5th floor and asked to chat with her sometime this afternoon about op-ed optics , timing, pros/cons, -- or if an alternative delivery method (interview with a reporter? press release?) would be more ideal. I got some more time to sit and digest what you wrote, Jake over lunch (lots of digesting happening over here...) and I'm honestly thinking that an op-ed could be Step 1, and Bill could piggyback it into follow-up interviews if this makes a big enough splash (which I think it could, given what a key tenet this whole "wealth tax" argument is to certain people in the news cycle these days). (note: Avatar: pink circle with initials 'SM' and a small x-badge.)
[3] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — One flag I wanted to raise for you both to start chewing on in case we get the green light from Amanda and need to get ourselves into gear: This line is bugging me: "...Vermont the people with the highest income in a given year are often not the wealthiest." I know exactly what you mean by it, Jake but I fear it could cue the world's tiniest violins for those reading. I'll think about ways to rephrase the same message. [reactions: 👍 ×1 (outlined)]
[4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/19 1:11 PM — Thanks for engaging the 5th floor on this, Sarah. Feel free to pitch alternatives. Noting that was a Claude sentence and I actually liked Jake's OG a bit better! Does it land any different to your populist ear?  "It sounds counterintuitive, but Vermont's wealthiest are not necessarily the ones with the highest income"....[in a given year?] (note: Avatar: photo with a green presence badge. Two spaces appear after 'ear?'.)
[5] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — "It sounds counterintuitive, but Vermont's wealthiest are not necessarily the ones with the highest income in a particular year(?). If someone earns a lot of income year over year they will likely become wealthy, but in Vermont, high income tends to be a one-time event." (note: Formatting: 'in a particular year(?)' is rendered in red text; 'become' is italic.)
[6] OWNER — 10/19 2:11 PM — What about: "Cue the tiny violins, but the Vermonters with over XXX of income in a particular year are not necessarily the state's welthiest" [reactions: 😆 ×1, 🎻 ×1] (note: Right-aligned (owner). A small read-receipt avatar dot sits at the right of the bubble. 'welthiest' sic.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_20_1.png

- Original: 7__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_20 1.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes

[1] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 10:0[illegible] AM — great poitn! We can say itll all be updated in dec with teh 10 year tax study!!! (in teh source area) [CUT TOP] (note: The name/time line is clipped by the top edge: only the lower halves of the glyphs are visible; 'Sameroff, Rebecca' and '10/20 10:0' are readable from the lower halves, the last minute digit is not. Avatar (photo, yellow clock badge) and the bubble are complete.)
[2] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — Just FYI -Sarah clark sent some edits, inclduing randomly bolded words. dropping them in teh doc for consideration but kate already caught more of them
[3] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:13 AM — zo (note: Two-letter message in its own bubble. Avatar: photo with green presence badge.)
[4] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — I'm looking at the ITEP clarification - is it saying that the $57k doesn't exist, but that $25k does exist?
[5] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — Like the windfall is less than advertised but still five digits?
[6] OWNER — 10/20 10:14 AM — The $25k is business tax cuts, almost all from front-loading business expenses (so not a true ongoing tax cut - just a timing change)
[7] OWNER — (no stamp) — I thought about putting in a sentence about that but decided it was too wonky
[8] OWNER — (no stamp) — I could try to add something if people feel like we need it [reactions: 👍 ×1]
[9] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:20 AM — Def. not to the op ed, but just thinking about this source document. I feel like me and Sarah are the target audience of non-tax people trying to understand the sources, and if anyone does, in fact, click through they'll see that immediately.
[10] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 10:21 AM — YEah lets do it Jake
[11] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — OR find another resource - tax foundation, TPC, whatever - that does it for us to link and quote
[12] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — [not visible] [CUT BOTTOM] (note: Only the top edge of a left-aligned gray bubble is visible directly below message 11 (no name line between them); its text is below the visible area.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_20_2.png

- Original: 8__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_20 2.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes
- Background strip (not numbered): a second window image above the foreground window repeats 10_20_1 messages 1–3 (Sameroff 'great poitn! …', Sameroff 'Just FYI …', and the 'Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20 10:13 AM' name line with the top of the 'zo' bubble).

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — (no text) [CUT TOP] [image: Bottom of an embedded image of a table, cut at the top. Visible: a row reading 'Highest 0.1 Percentile | Above 2,042,000 | 324 | 310,825 | 100,707,216' and a final row 'Total | 880,505,124' (bold).] (note: Left-aligned (other participant). The name/time line and the top of the image are above the visible area, so the sender is not shown.)
[2] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — It's hard to parse the difference between "Estimated Average Federal" and "Estimated Federal" and it makes it seem like there's a substantial new decrease... (note: Continuation bubble directly under message 1 (same sender as message 1, whose name line is not visible).)
[3] OWNER — 10/20 10:26 AM — JCT compared to a baseline where the TCJA expired, which (as Claude points out) is a reasonable way to do it
[4] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:27 AM — Wondering if we should explicitly say, then, which JFO slides we're using as a source (note: Avatar: photo with yellow clock badge.)
[5] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — and maybe even note that slide 7 assumes that TCJA expired which wasn't ultimately the case (right?)
[6] OWNER — 10/20 10:28 AM — slide 6 says it pretty clearly re: the JCT estimates on slide 7
[7] OWNER — (no stamp) — right
[8] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:31 AM — As far as we know, was pre-correction ITEP testimony the single source of the $57k number?
[9] OWNER — 10/20 10:33 AM — I think different sources had different figures but the $57K was/is most widely cited: https://fairsharevt.org/ [CUT BOTTOM] [link: https://fairsharevt.org/] (note: Bubble text is complete; the card below it is cut.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_20_3.png

- Original: 9__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_20 3.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes
- Background strip (not numbered): a second window image above the foreground window repeats 10_20_1 messages 1–3 (Sameroff 'great poitn! …', Sameroff 'Just FYI …', and the 'Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20 10:13 AM' name line with the top of the 'zo' bubble).

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — [not visible] [CUT TOP] [reactions: [clipped] ×1] (note: Only reaction chips at the right (owner-side) edge are visible, belonging to a message above the visible area.)
[2] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:40 AM — JCT is Joint Committee on Taxation? [reactions: 👍 ×1] (note: Avatar: photo with green presence badge.)
[3] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — I'm sorry, I'm getting confused again - the JFO slides say "JCT estimates include the impact of making temporary changes set to expire permanent. • In some cases, this is not a significant change relative to tax treatment from the previous tax year."
[4] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — Doesn't that mean that their analysis did include the assumption that TCJA cuts were permanent?
[5] OWNER — 10/20 10:49 AM — You could plug in "for most taxpayers" for "in some cases"
[6] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:50 AM — Jake, could you take a look at what I'm trying to do on the source sheet and see if you think it makes sense?
[7] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — My take is just that there needs to be some context around the links. It can be wonky, since these are sources for the journalists and not the op-ed itself
[8] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — But I think non-tax people would need some hand holding to understand how to apply the sources
[9] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — And I'm pretty sure I'm not doing a great job. 😳 (note: Inline emoji: flushed face.)
[10] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 11:01 AM — [not visible] [EDITED; CUT BOTTOM] (note: Only the name/time line with the 'Edited' flag is visible at the bottom edge (the crop omits this line; it is in the original). The bubble is below the visible area.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_20_4.png

- Original: 10__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_20 4.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: no · Bottom cut: yes
- Background strip (not numbered): a second window image above the foreground window repeats 10_20_1 messages 1–3 (Sameroff 'great poitn! …', Sameroff 'Just FYI …', and the 'Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20 10:13 AM' name line with the top of the 'zo' bubble).

[1] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 12:14 PM — I think this tact does still get this point across! Just without saying "wealth" versus "income" outright -- which I think could come across to the average reader as out-of-touch. [quoted reply: Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20/2026 11:58 AM — "I like the flow of your edit. I am sad to miss out on the opportunity to do some small education on the difference between 'wealth' and..."] (note: Avatar: 'SM' initials circle with x-badge.)
[2] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — I actually don't think of the crowd that we're talking about here in those terms at all. If you're relying on selling your farm for your retirement nest egg in the Year of Our Lord 2026, you're not in a great place financially (sad to say). I think of this population as those who didn't have the means or the financial literacy to contribute to a 401K or Roth IRA during their working years. [quoted reply: Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20/2026 12:01 PM — "I am slightly wary of swinging to far in the other direction, though, also. If you're able to fuel your retirement with this sort of one-time..."]
[3] OWNER — 10/20 12:19 PM — I like SM's paragraph but the stuff about food and heating fuel is a stretch
[4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 12:23 PM — OK IM BACK! Looks like a lot of work to catch up on here. I'm going to review with a bit of a bias towards the flow of the already-approved content (in all its unpolished glory!) but if Jake and Comms are aligned on more significant/fundamental [CUT BOTTOM] (note: Bubble continues below the bottom edge (the crop shows only the first line; the second line is read from the original).)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_20_5.png

- Original: 11__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_20 5.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: no

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — (no text) [CUT TOP] [image: Bottom point of a red/pink heart-shaped graphic (a large emoji or image), cut at the top.] (note: Left-aligned. The name/time line is above the visible area; the lower part of a pink avatar circle with an x-badge is visible at the left.)
[2] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — Okay about to hit send unless anyone tells me to STOP NOW! (note: Continuation bubble directly under message 1 (same sender, whose name line is not visible).)
[3] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 5:02 PM — go now! (note: Avatar: photo with green presence badge.)
[4] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — multi-agency HERO!
[5] OWNER — 10/20 5:11 PM — Think that 57,000 stat paragraph needs to say “the additional amount” (note: Curly quotation marks as rendered.)
[6] OWNER — (no stamp) — Makes it sound like they would pay 57,000 in all
[7] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 5:12 PM — OOH mark it up in the doc please for tomorrow!!!
[8] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — Ah i see i see
[9] Sameroff, Rebecca — (no stamp) — That popular $57,000 figure actually refers to the ave tax increase high earners would have seen if the 2017 Trump tax cuts had expired. Something like that? (I felt like we had to say that that # is somewhere! Very open to improvements/alternatives!) [EDITED] (note: An 'Edited' label appears on its own line above this bubble. 'would have' is italic.)
[10] OWNER — 10/20 5:15 PM — That works with increase italicized [reactions: 👍 ×1]
— October 21 —
[11] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 6:13 AM — edited in my clean offline Word copy, too! (note: Avatar: 'SM' initials circle with x-badge.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_21_1.png

- Original: 12__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_21 1.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — Okay yes sorry, seeing the line in this Sharepoint doc now. Okay so we want to include JUST this stuff, yes? ⏎  ⏎ Source: Vermont Department of Taxes, personal income data for tax year 2024. https://tax.vermont.gov/data-and-statistics/income-tax, see AGI Percentile table. ⏎ Data and methodology: ⏎ Vermont Department of Taxes data for tax year 2024 indicate that adjusted gross income (AGI) of approximately $500,000 corresponds to the threshold for the top 1% of Vermont resident income tax filers. The income thresholds are used to identify the groups referenced in the op-ed. ⏎  ⏎ The shares of income tax paid by the top 1%, top 10%, and bottom 50% are calculated by comparing the total income tax attributable to each group with total Vermont resident income tax collections represented in the data. ⏎ Note that Tax Year 2024 is the most recent tax year for which complete data is available. Filing for Tax Year 2025 concluded on October 15, 2026. [CUT TOP] [reactions: 👍 ×1 (outlined)] [link: https://tax.vermont.gov/data-and-statistics/income-tax] (note: The name/time line is clipped by the top edge (only two dots of it remain); the avatar at left is the 'SM' initials circle with x-badge. Bubble text is complete. Formatting: 'Source:' bold; 'Data and methodology:' bold; the final two sentences ('Note that Tax Year 2024 ... October 15, 2026.') bold.)
[2] OWNER — 10/21 9:28 AM — The last sentence we can drop, I think, because it makes it sound like we have 2025 (since it's 10/21 now) when in reality they are not all posted [reactions: 👍 ×3]
[3] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 9:30 AM — I also have news that will likely be unwelcome. Digger's word count limit for op-eds is indeed 850. But I was compiling a list of other outlets to whom to send this this morning and several cut it off at 800 words. ⏎  ⏎ I say we send the full kit n kaboodle to Digger because they're the gold standard. I also know that they are the pickiest -- and often longest -- to get op eds published. Bill has been adamant that he wants me to blast this thing out to as many outlets as possible. I can take a spin through our latest version and try to identify trims that we can make for a shorter, 800-word version to send to those other outlets.
[4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/21 9:37 AM — [not visible] [CUT BOTTOM] (note: Only the name/time line is visible above the compose box; the bubble is not shown.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_21_2.png

- Original: 13__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_21 2.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: no · Bottom cut: yes

[1] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/21 9:37 AM — Oof (note: Same name/time line as the last line of 10_21_1; here the bubble is visible.)
[2] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 9:46 AM — Shouldice 'wealth tax' op ed TRUNCATED Oct 2026 [link: Shouldice 'wealth tax' op ed TRUNCATED Oct 2026] [file card: Shouldice 'wealth tax' op ed... — TAX-POLA > General] (note: Avatar: 'SM' initials circle with x-badge.)
[3] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — 795 words 😤 (note: Inline emoji: face with steam from nose.)
[4] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — Changes tracked so you all can see what I cut. I'm not happy about having to trim anything but as the saying goes in the news biz, sometimes you have to kill your darlings [reactions: 😆 ×1 (outlined)]
[5] OWNER — 10/21 9:50 AM — You get rid of my darling $10M factoid! [reactions: 💯 ×1]
[6] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 9:50 AM — It's such a darling factoid!!!!!! [CUT BOTTOM] (note: Bubble is clipped by the bottom edge (lower half hidden); the single line of text is legible. Six exclamation marks.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_21_3.png

- Original: 14__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_21 3.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: no
- Layout: The original has a blank white band (~295 px) above the Teams window title bar; the window occupies only the lower part of the 1920x1020 capture.

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — [not visible] [CUT TOP] [reactions: 😆 ×1] (note: Only the reaction chips (left/other-participant side) of a message above the visible area are shown.)
[2] OWNER — 10/21 9:56 AM — I think we could actually jettison that next little sentence that starts, "But, unlike Mass..."
[3] OWNER — (no stamp) — But of course I'm biased towards the empirical stuff
[4] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 9:57 AM — Oh no you're so right, Jake. I like that cut better [reactions: 👍 ×1] (note: Avatar: 'SM' initials circle with x-badge.)
[5] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — Reincarnating your darling now [reactions: 😆 ×1]
[6] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — 👼 (note: A single large emoji (baby angel) displayed without a bubble.)
[7] Mearhoff, Sarah — (no stamp) — 783 WORDS!!! 🔪🔪🔪🔪 [reactions: 🎉 ×1] (note: Four kitchen-knife emoji after the text.)
[8] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 11:11 AM — I haven't heard from the 5th floor but Bill just called and said he wants me to send this puppy out. He is reaching out to them one more time and if they don't answer, he said to just let it rip. Last call: Any final red flags on the 850-word version for Digger, or the 800-word version for other outlets? (note: The crop clips the last line of this bubble; the full text is read from the original, where the bubble ends at the window's bottom edge. Anything below it (e.g. reaction chips) is not visible.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_21_4.png

- Original: 15__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_21 4.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes
- Layout: The original has a blank white band (~295 px) above the Teams window title bar; the window occupies only the lower part of the 1920x1020 capture.

[1] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — (no text) [CUT TOP] [file card: [not visible] — [not visible]] (note: Left-aligned (other participant); the name/time line is above the visible area.)
[2] (sender not visible) — (no stamp) — If there are no final objections, I'll go through and accept the tracked cuts in the short version [EDITED] (note: Continuation bubble under message 1 (same sender, whose name line is not visible). An 'Edited' label appears on its own line above this bubble.)
[3] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 11:38 AM — Just got the clear from 5th floor and Bill. Sending (note: Avatar: 'SM' initials circle with x-badge.)
[4] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 11:56 AM — Okay I'm gonna stop copying you all on every single one of these emails to newspapers because I imagine that's getting really old really fast. Just know I'm disseminating this widely [reactions: ❤️ ×2]
[5] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 12:15 PM — And already: the Waterbury Roundabout is running with it 🫡 [reactions: 😮 ×1 (outlined)] (note: Inline emoji: saluting face (hand at brow).)
[6] OWNER — 10/21 1:32 PM — Should we have capitalized the s in state in the title?
[7] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 1:39 PM — I am going to choose to believe that it's fine the way we sent it [CUT BOTTOM] [reactions: [clipped] ×1] (note: Bubble text is complete; the reaction chips under it are cut.)

## Feldman_MS_Teams_Chat_10_21_5.png

- Original: 16__Feldman MS Teams Chat 10_21 5.png
- Header: Connizzo, Katelyn, Evans, Mariko, Magnus, Abigail, +3
- Top cut: yes · Bottom cut: yes
- Layout: The original has a blank white band (~295 px) above the Teams window title bar; the window occupies only the lower part of the 1920x1020 capture.

[1] OWNER — (no stamp) — Should we have capitalized the s in state in the title? [CUT TOP] (note: Right-aligned bubble clipped by the top edge: only the lower half of the single text line is visible; the time stamp above it is not shown. Text read from the lower halves of the glyphs; it matches 10_21_4 message 6.)
[2] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/21 1:39 PM — I am going to choose to believe that it's fine the way we sent it [reactions: 😆 ×1] (note: Repeats the last message of 10_21_4; here the reaction chip is visible.)
— October 22 —
[3] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/22 8:36 AM — Alive! and just cathcing up on Cutler's WCAX piece before the debate. Great work seeding that one! And even Austin D did a great job. Kinda like that "taxing oligarchs vs taxing oncologists" line. [reactions: 👍 ×2 (outlined)] (note: Avatar: photo with green presence badge.)
[4] OWNER — 10/22 8:45 AM — Do we have any sense of where the op-ed might get published and when? I though Calvin's thing was decent (for WCAX) but it would be great if the full picture of the $57K got out there
[5] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/22 8:46 AM — Sarah said that the Waterbury Roundabout is running it! (note: Avatar: photo with red presence badge.)
[6] Connizzo, Katelyn — (no stamp) — It usually takes a couple of days for VTDigger to decide, I think
[7] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/22 8:47 AM — The trump tax cut was front and center early in the debate so I'm thinking he'll get pinged (if op-ed staff and reporter staff [CUT BOTTOM] (note: Bubble continues below the bottom edge; the avatar is also clipped.)