Public records · Transcripts · MD

Teams transcript, Word-file images 1 to 15

Derived from teams/group-B.md

# Teams chat screenshots — Group B (Op Ed Group - Teams Chat.docx, images 1–15) Source: `raw/email1/parts/5__teams-docx-media/image1.png` … `image15.png`. Owner hint: unknown (pasted into Word; no own-side messages). No chat header or participant list is visible in any screenshot. All stamps read 10/20 (quote blocks show 10/20/2026). Conventions: `[n] sender — time — text`; time `—` means an unstamped continuation bubble. `{+…+}` underlined, `[-…-]` struck through, `*…*` italic (pasted Word tracked changes). `⏎` marks a line break inside one bubble. Reactions, attachments, quotes and @mentions follow in brackets. `[cut: top/bottom]` marks bubbles clipped by the frame. ## image1.png (top_cut=false, bottom_cut=false) _Screenshot note: No chat header, channel name or participant list visible. First stamped message in the group. image2 does not begin where this ends (image2 opens on an unstamped bubble), so at least the next stamp line is not captured._ [1] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 9:31 AM — Op ed chat! [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 9:39 AM — Did everybody's else's computer force an update and restart?? Ugh. [reaction 😆 ×1] [3] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 9:44 AM — Flagging that we're at 792 words; VTDigger word limit is 850 and we probably want to be a little under. [4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 9:55 AM — (Whoop! We're rescheduling leg prep so a bit more flex this morning!) [5] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — FYI BIll doesn't want to tinker (himself) with the sassy parts at the beginning adn end - gave him the opportunity. HE said JAke captured him perfectly! note: Continuation bubble under the 9:55 AM stamp. 'BIll' is rendered B + capital I + l + l (the second stroke is cap-height, the last two are ascender-height at 10x zoom); tesseract read it as 'BIIl'. [6] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 10:05 AM — For tbe "source list"/ accompanying media guide - really not sure how to best use this opportunity and very open to guidance form the comms wizards! We dropped someraw stuff and formatted style to consider. Jake and I were wondering if we really need to provide the exact 1%, 10%, 50% stats (unrounded, full-on fact check) or just provide the link and explanation fo teh data source. Latter less awkward feeling. [Edited] note: Double space before '- really' as rendered. Bubble ends at the bottom edge of the frame; text complete. ## image2.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Top: first bubble's stamp above the frame. Bottom: last bubble clipped. Messages 9-10 are repeated as image3 messages 1-2._ [1] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — Confirming that we are using Tax Year 2024 data because that is the most recent year we have complete data for because people only fully completed filing for Tax Year 2025 five days ago? [reaction 👍 ×1 | cut: top] note: Name/time stamp is above the frame; the bubble and its text are complete. Sender recorded from the avatar at left (same photo and green status badge as Connizzo, Katelyn's stamped messages). This message does not appear in image1. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — I might add a note to that effect since 2024 may feel like a long time ago in the not-tax worl [3] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — d note: Single-character bubble; the preceding bubble ends 'worl'. [4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 10:09 AM — great poitn! We can say itll all be updated in dec with teh 10 year tax study!!! (in teh source area) [5] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — 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 [6] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:13 AM — zo [7] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — I'm looking at the ITEP clarification - is it saying that the $57k doesn't exist, but that $25k does exist? [8] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — Like the windfall is less than advertised but still five digits? [9] Feldman, Jake — 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) [10] Feldman, Jake — — — I thought about putting in a sentence about that but decided it was too wonky [cut: bottom] note: Bubble border clipped at the frame edge; text complete. Repeated at the top of image3. ## image3.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Overlaps image2 (messages 1-2) and image4 (messages 8-9)._ [1] Feldman, Jake — — — The $25k is business tax cuts, almost all from front-loading business expenses (so not a true ongoing tax cut - just a timing change) [cut: top] note: Only the descenders of the stamp line are visible; avatar visible. Same message as image2 message 9 (10/20 10:14 AM). [2] Feldman, Jake — — — I thought about putting in a sentence about that but decided it was too wonky note: Same message as image2 message 10. [3] Feldman, Jake — — — I could try to add something if people feel like we need it [reaction 👍 ×1] [4] 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. [5] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 10:21 AM — YEah lets do it Jake [6] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — OR find another resource - tax foundation, TPC, whatever - that does it for us to link and quote [7] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — IN TEH RESOURCE doc (not the op ed) [reaction 👍 ×1] [8] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:21 AM — Similarly the JFO slide 3 tracks for me, but then slide 7 gets confusing again. [9] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — (no text) [embedded image: Embedded slide image: “Estimates of Change in Vermonters’ Federal Income Tax Liability” | cut: bottom] note: Image-only bubble; only the slide title is visible above the frame edge. The full slide is visible in image4 message 2. ## image4.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Overlaps image3 (messages 1-2) and image5 (message 8 = image5 message 1)._ [1] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — Similarly the JFO slide 3 tracks for me, but then slide 7 gets confusing again. [cut: top] note: Only the lower half of the text line is visible; read against image3 message 8 (10/20 10:21 AM). Avatar visible at left. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — (no text) [embedded image: Embedded slide image: “Estimates of Change in Vermonters’ Federal Income Tax Liability” (table)] note: Image-only bubble: a slide with a title and a five-column table; transcription in attachments[0].table. embedded slide table — Estimates of Change in Vermonters’ Federal Income Tax Liability | AGI Percentile | Federal AGI Quantile | VT Resident Returns | JCT Estimated Average Federal Tax Decrease | JCT Estimated Federal Tax Decrease | |---|---|---|---|---| | Lowest Quintile | 25,000 | 89,383 | 108 | 9,683,716 | | Second Quintile | 47,400 | 66,529 | 557 | 37,059,686 | | Third Quintile | 74,900 | 64,648 | 1,140 | 73,698,587 | | Fourth Quintile | 120,200 | 55,557 | 2,515 | 139,705,659 | | 80th to 90th Percentile | 170,500 | 30,333 | 3,988 | 120,956,456 | | 90th to 95th Percentile | 233,500 | 15,086 | 5,922 | 89,336,263 | | 95th to 99th Percentile | 526,000 | 12,853 | 14,571 | 187,284,204 | | 99th to 99.9th Percentile | 2,042,000 | 2,961 | 41,227 | 122,073,337 | | Highest 0.1 Percentile | Above 2,042,000 | 324 | 310,825 | 100,707,216 | | Total | | | | 880,505,124 | legibility: Embedded image is small (approx. 450x240 px in the screenshot); figures read at 4x upscale. The nine row values in the last column sum exactly to the printed total 880,505,124, which supports the reading. [3] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — 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... [4] Feldman, Jake — 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 [5] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:27 AM — Wondering if we should explicitly say, then, which JFO slides we're using as a source [6] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — and maybe even note that slide 7 assumes that TCJA expired which wasn't ultimately the case (right?) [7] Feldman, Jake — 10/20 10:28 AM — slide 6 says it pretty clearly re: the JCT estimates on slide 7 [8] Feldman, Jake — — — (no text) [cut: bottom] note: Only the top edge of a further bubble is visible below message 7; no text readable. image5 opens with the bubble 'right' in the same position. ## image5.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: image6 does not begin where this ends (image6 opens on an unstamped Feldman, Jake bubble); whether messages are missing between them cannot be determined from the screenshots._ [1] Feldman, Jake — — — right note: No stamp or avatar visible for this bubble (its group header is above the frame). Sender recorded from continuity: image4 ends with Feldman, Jake 10/20 10:28 AM followed by the top edge of this bubble. The bubble itself is complete. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:31 AM — As far as we know, was pre-correction ITEP testimony the single source of the $57k number? [3] Feldman, Jake — 10/20 10:33 AM — I think different sources had different figures but the $57K was/is most widely cited: ⏎ https://fairsharevt.org/ [reaction 👍 ×1 | link https://fairsharevt.org/ with preview card “Fair Share for Vermont” — Fair Share for Vermont is a proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest Vermont residents to build a better Vermont. — fairsharevt.org] note: URL rendered as a hyperlink on its own line, followed by a link-preview card. [4] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 10:40 AM — JCT is Joint Committee on Taxation? [reaction 👍 ×1] [5] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — 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." [6] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — Doesn't that mean that their analysis did include the assumption that TCJA cuts were permanent? [cut: bottom] note: Bubble border clipped at the frame edge; text complete. ## image6.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: image7 opens on an unstamped bubble from a different sender, so at least the next stamp line is not captured._ [1] Feldman, Jake — — — You could plug in "for most taxpayers" for "in some cases" [cut: top] note: Stamp line clipped to a sliver; bubble complete. Sender recorded from the avatar at left (same photo and amber status badge as Feldman, Jake's stamped messages). [2] 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? [3] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — 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 [4] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — But I think non-tax people would need some hand holding to understand how to apply the sources [5] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — And I'm pretty sure I'm not doing a great job. 🙃 note: Trailing emoji is an upside-down face. [6] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 11:01 AM — Just FYI all that I’m heading into a meeting until noon and then can give this *FULL attention and help try to propose clarity around the truth with ob3/approporaite framing *for linked resources [Edited] note: Apostrophe in 'I’m' is rendered curly (unlike the straight apostrophes elsewhere in the chat). [7] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 11:12 AM — (sorry voice to text from car was slop there - tl;dr - let me take a look at noon!) [8] Magnus, Abigail — 10/20 11:13 AM — for the "replace with actuals" comments, are you wanting like the share of income taxes paid by that group or the AGI cutoff for that group? [cut: bottom] note: Avatar is the initials 'AM' on a green circle (no photo) with a green status badge. Bubble border clipped at the frame edge; text appears complete. ## image7.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Overlaps image8 (message 4 continues as image8 message 1)._ [1] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — Q for Sameroff, Rebecca and Connizzo, Katelyn: Am I more needed here editing this op ed, or working with the interns to stuff Symposium folders? My sense is that this op-ed is higher priority but LMK if I'm misjudging and I can run down the hill to the intern sesh [@mentions: Sameroff, Rebecca, Connizzo, Katelyn | cut: top] note: Stamp above the frame; bubble complete. Sender recorded from the avatar at left (same photo and ⊗ status badge as Mearhoff, Sarah's stamped messages below). 'Sameroff, Rebecca' and 'Connizzo, Katelyn' are rendered in blue as @mentions. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 11:21 AM — Interns are about to be rescheduled [3] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — because materials are still printing [4] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 11:39 AM — Bringing a conversation here from the doc, because I don't want to make a big edit (even with track changes on) without discussing it first, and comments can get lost in the sauce. ⏎ ⏎ Regarding this graph: ⏎ ⏎ That misleading $57,000 federal tax cut figure{+ is+}[- mostly-]{+ usually+} {+paired with a call+}[-comes up in campaigns that aim-] to make Vermont’s wealthiest pay more state income taxes.{+ But here’s the problem: wealth and income aren’t the same thing. +}[-It sounds counterintuitive, but Vermont’s wealthiest are not necessarily the ones with the highest income.-] If someone earns a lot of income [-year over year-]{+every year,+} they will likely *become* wealthy, but[- in Vermont-], {+we don’t have the same deep bench of ultra-high annual earners that they have in New York or Massachusetts. In Vermont, we only have about 700 taxpayers that have consistently made it into our top tax bracket over the past decade.+} ⏎ ⏎ Even with these edits, I remain concerned that all of this exposition will read as really unsympathetic to [cut: bottom] note: The 'Regarding this graph:' paragraph is pasted with Word tracked-changes formatting and a blue selection highlight: underlined (inserted) text is marked {+...+}, struck-through (deleted) text [-...-], and the italic word *become*. Exact spacing inside the change marks is approximate. Apostrophes in that paragraph are curly as rendered. The message continues in image8 (its first line repeats the last line here). ## image8.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=false) _Screenshot note: Bottom not cut (reaction chip and margin visible)._ [1] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — Even with these edits, I remain concerned that all of this exposition will read as really unsympathetic to the average reader -- as if we're saying, "Well, it's money but it's not REAL money," or something. What if we just cut straight from, "That misleading $57K figure..." to, "In Vermont, high income tends to be a one-time event." I think brevity is our friend here! [cut: top] note: Tail of image7 message 4 (Mearhoff, Sarah 10/20 11:39 AM); no avatar or stamp in frame. [2] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — Gimme a sec and I'll sketch out a substantial edit suggestion here in Teams: [3] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 11:48 AM — That misleading $57,000 federal tax cut figure is usually paired with a call to make Vermont’s wealthiest pay more state income taxes. {+But here are the facts: In Vermont, high income tends to be a one-time event -- like selling their business or farm.+} ⏎ ⏎ {+In fact, in the past decade, +}almost half of the 13,000 Vermonters who have made it into the top 1% (reporting income of roughly $500,000) only made it one time. {+For many Vermonters, selling their farm or business *is* their retirement plan.+} ⏎ ⏎ {+So when advocates call to tax “the wealthy”, they are really proposing that the state take an even larger bite out of the life’s work of Vermonters. That's money that Vermonters are counting on to support them through retirement as the cost of food, home heating fuel, health care, and property taxes continue to skyrocket.+} [reaction ❤️ ×1] note: Underlined passages marked {+...+}; *is* italic. Curly quotes/apostrophes in 'Vermont’s', '“the wealthy”' and 'life’s' as rendered; 'That's' straight. ## image9.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Overlaps image10 (message 4 continues as image10 message 1)._ [1] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 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 'income' for taxation purposes. note: Stamp clipped at the top edge of the frame but legible. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — 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 event, I think a tax increase is more likely to cut into your travel budget than your food budget. Maybe instead of listing specific costs we could just say 'cost of living' as a blanket term? Or are the individual budget line items compelling? note: Continuation bubble; the quote block in message 4 stamps this message 10/20/2026 12:01 PM. [3] 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. [quote of 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: Quoted reply: the quote block (sender, full-date stamp, truncated text) sits above the reply text. [4] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — 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 [quote of 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...” | cut: bottom] note: Quoted reply. A further text line is clipped to illegibility at the frame edge; image10 shows the remainder ('literacy to contribute to a 401K or Roth IRA during their working years.'). ## image10.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: The screenshot is cropped at the left so the avatars are cut in half. Overlaps image9._ [1] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — 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. [cut: top] note: Tail of image9 message 4 (Mearhoff, Sarah, continuation after 10/20 12:14 PM); the first line repeats image9's last readable line. [2] Feldman, Jake — 10/20 12:19 PM — I like SM's paragraph but the stuff about food and heating fuel is a stretch [3] 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 rewrites we should absolutely make them! [4] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 12:26 PM — Fair enough! Your girl wanted to try to sneak in one lil dig on property taxes, but I accept the stretch allegations. ⏎ ⏎ {+So when advocates call to tax “the wealthy”, they are really proposing that the state take an even larger bite out of the life’s work of Vermonters. That's money that Vermonters are counting on to support them through retirement.+} [quote of Feldman, Jake 10/20/2026 12:19 PM: “I like SM's paragraph but the stuff about food and heating fuel is a stretch” | cut: bottom] note: Quoted reply. Second paragraph underlined ({+...+}). Bubble border clipped at the frame edge; text complete. ## image11.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=false) [1] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 12:27 PM — switch "they" for "Vermonters" in the second sentence? [reaction 👍 ×1] note: Stamp clipped at the top edge of the frame but legible. [2] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — All of SOV writing is just rationing the number of times you get to use "Vermonter" [reaction 😆 ×2] [3] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 12:29 PM — Yippee! If all are in favor, I will edit this into the doc (track changes still on, of course) [Edited] [4] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 12:59 PM — Sameroff, Rebecca do you want to start accepting changes you approve as you work through the document? We'll probably need to do another run through after to make sure things are still reading smoothly. [@mentions: Sameroff, Rebecca | reaction ❤️ ×1] note: 'Sameroff, Rebecca' rendered in blue as an @mention. [5] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 12:59 PM — Yes so far I'm only leaving things I/we need to come back to [reaction ❤️ ×1] ## image12.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=false) [1] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 1:02 PM — FYI: Just talked to Amanda Wheeler and the gov's office is happy and eager. She asked for one final look at the draft before we send it to newspapers. The gov is scheduled to go on the Morning Drive tomorrow morning and will tease some of these talking points. note: Stamp clipped at the top edge of the frame but legible. [2] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 1:09 PM — oh no.... Ha KATE I was working on the draft I saved off offline hahaha. Classic. Let em swoop back in [reaction 😆 ×1] [3] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — lets all pause for a sec so i can catch up (i dont think anyone is currently editing in the main op ed text at least) [reaction 👍 ×1] [4] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 3:34 PM — Kate thanks for your offer to clean up my additions but FYI I just went a little rouge on a new offline copy. Will try and reintegrate the edits if it keeps going well, but May need to send you that one instead. [reaction 😮 ×1] [5] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 3:42 PM — Rebecca Unleashed [6] Mearhoff, Sarah — — — I'm eager to see, myself!!! note: Bubble ends at the bottom edge of the frame; text complete. ## image13.png (top_cut=false, bottom_cut=false) _Screenshot note: Only screenshot in the group with a file card._ [1] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 4:10 PM — UNLEASHED! Wealth Tax - Op Ed_draft ....agh reorg.docx [file card: Wealth Tax - Op Ed_draft ....agh reorg.docx — TAX-POLA > General (card title shown as “Wealth Tax - Op Ed_draft .......”; Word icon; document preview)] note: The file name is rendered as a hyperlink inline after 'UNLEASHED!'; the card title truncates it with an ellipsis. document preview text (best reading; see legibility note): > Before the state of Vermont claims the 1%’s “$57,000 tax cut,” let’s make sure it exists > By Bill Shouldice, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Taxes > With election season here, taxes are all over the news and social media and sometimes it’s hard to know what’s accurate. Recently, I’ve gotten into work in the morning all fired up about something I saw online — so I ask the experts on my staff at the Department of Taxes what they make of it. Most of the time, their answer is a polite version of, “That’s total garbage, Bill, and you really need to stop looking at Facebook so much.” But when a claim shows up often enough, in enough places, it starts to feel true. That’s exactly when it’s worth slowing down and fact-checking. > Since Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, in 2025, I’ve seen lots of posts about how Vermonters could be impacted on their federal taxes. One hot take that keeps coming up — and seems to have gotten even more momentum recently — is the idea that OBBBA gives the top 1% of Vermonters an average tax cut of $57,000. > This federal tax cut figure is usually paired with a call to make Vermont’s wealthiest pay more state income taxes toward funding new initiatives. After all, they just saw a massive federal tax cut, right? Well, as my staff and the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal staff explained this past session, that’s not what actually happened. > High-income taxpayers did see a federal tax cut from the first Trump Administration’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, back in 2017. During the 2018 legislative session that followed, Vermont legislators responded – raising state income taxes on those top earners to “recoup” or “claw back” some of those federal tax cuts. What the OBBBA did last year [last line half-clipped; best reading:] was extend those existing tax cuts rather than let them expire. That popular $57,000 figure actually relates to the legibility: Document preview is a low-resolution thumbnail (approx. 440x250 px); read at 5x upscale, best reading. The final preview line is cut in half by the card's bottom edge. [2] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — (Sorry about this version pivot. I started chopping and didn't know if I'd want to keep it! It will only take me about 10 mins to transfer edits into teh other version if folks are concerned about V-control but looked like I was the only one left tinkering in the document.) [3] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 4:17 PM — OOPS! LEft 2 versions of teh same para - I wanted that 700 number back in the upper section too ## image14.png (top_cut=true, bottom_cut=false) [1] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 4:19 PM — We can declare this version the new version, I think! [reaction 👍 ×1] note: Stamp clipped at the top edge of the frame (upper half of the letters missing) but legible. [2] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 4:19 PM — PHEW [3] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 4:26 PM — GREAT edits so far, yall! Kate knows I'm not precious about these additions! trying to help the story flow. [4] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 4:30 PM — Huge fan of adding the portions of PIT receipts paid by top 1%, 10%, etc., Sameroff, Rebecca. Really illustrates how truly progressive our tax system already is [Edited | @mentions: Sameroff, Rebecca] note: 'Sameroff, Rebecca' rendered in blue as an @mention. [5] Connizzo, Katelyn — 10/20 4:33 PM — We are over on word count by 4 words! [reaction 😆 ×1] [6] Connizzo, Katelyn — — — I would suggest sending to the Fifth floor anyhow and letting them do what they're going to do before we go back through to trim specifically for word count [reaction 👍 ×1] ## image15.png (top_cut=false, bottom_cut=true) _Screenshot note: Last screenshot of the group; the conversation continues past the frame._ [1] Sameroff, Rebecca — 10/20 4:34 PM — Just got the "where did my op ed go!?" note from Bill. Does this sound right? Send to 5th floor tonight. Sarah launch thru networks first thing after getting approval ....tommorrow? (including just the very top part of the "sources" material for now.... because the grander vision is nice to have for pushing out to reporters, but the timely product is an op ed and not necessary to fact check) [2] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — "at teh dept of taxes" hehehe [quote of Connizzo, Katelyn 10/20/2026 4:33 PM: “We are over on word count by 4 words!” | reaction 😆 ×1] note: Quoted reply. The quote block in message 3 stamps this message 10/20/2026 4:35 PM. [3] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — JKJK i agree thats a solid add [quote of Sameroff, Rebecca 10/20/2026 4:35 PM: “"at teh dept of taxes" hehehe”] note: Quoted reply quoting her own previous bubble. [4] Sameroff, Rebecca — — — Should I go read and accept cahgnes rn!? [reaction 👍 ×1] note: The quote block in message 5 stamps this message 10/20/2026 4:36 PM. [5] Mearhoff, Sarah — 10/20 4:36 PM — (no text) [quote of Sameroff, Rebecca 10/20/2026 4:36 PM: “Should I go read and accept cahgnes rn!?” | cut: bottom] note: Only the quote block is in frame; the reply text is below the frame edge. Not continued within images 1-15.