[Taters91]

No it didn't. The Tea Act removed duties on the East India Company, removed the need to go to the London Tea Auction, and just required a deposit for the importer.

[ObscureMind]

I would acknowledge that the Tea Act itself did not introduce new taxes, but instead retained an existing tax from the Townshend Acts. The real concern for many colonists was the principle of being taxed at all by a distant government. The Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on tea imports, effectively removing the ability of colonial merchants to participate in the trade, and forcing colonists to buy taxed tea. This move was seen as an attempt by Britain to assert greater control over colonial commerce through taxation by making the colonies dependent on the British-controlled East India Company.

For many colonists, the Tea Act was part of a broader frustration with what they viewed as excessive and unwarranted taxation on goods they needed, like tea. They objected not just to the specific tea tax, but to any form of taxation that they felt was imposed without their consent, and that undermined their economic freedom. This frustration eventually culminated in the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, which was a protest against both the specific tax on tea and the broader issue of unfair taxation—whether or not they had direct representation in Parliament.

[Taters91]

Yup, that's the general feeling among the colonists that were revolutionary. Most of the colonists felt they were not being treated like British citizens, and they resented the inequity. Taxation was not the issue: it was the lack of political participation they could have.

Also, they did not see it as a violation of their "economic freedom," as that concept was not really around in the 1700s. They objected to the violation of the British constitution, which meant their rights as British subjects were violated. Taxes were fine by them, as long as they had a voice in Parliament, which they did not have.