Talk:Tea Act/Archives/2013

Comment
The article is just about incomprehensible. Poorly constructed, not enough context and background. Should be written by someone else entirely.

Consequences Section
The current "Consequences" section is misplaced. It currently discusses the implications of the Boston Tea Party, which has its own Wikipedia article. Though this section may link to the Boston Tea Party article, it should better focus on the consequences of the act itself, such as enforcing the already existing townshed tea tax, and hurting the profitable smuggling trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfadden.matthew (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Edits
Upon finding it, this article looked like it had been written by the King George himself. It had no remarks about the reasons for Colonial objections to the Act, aside from the threat it posed to the smuggling trade. I tried to make it a little more neutral, please respond with any suggestions. Aug. 31, 2009

Well, the colonial objections were the right to tax them. Even though tea was at the lowest price ever, if the colonists bought it the would be agnologing Parliments right to tax them. Hope this helps! Sisgoofball4eva (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

remarks
Yes however the British monopoly lowered the price of tea because it eliminated the middle man. so they were mostly upset about the monopoly. signed a person from East Brunswick

One Sided?
This whole page sounds a bit one-sided and opinionated... "so-called" tea acts....? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedHeadWolf (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The formal title is An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the India Company's sales; and to impower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licences to the East India Company to export tea duty-free.. Kurando | ^_^ 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It also slightly misses the point that John Hancock and others were smugglers and thus benefited from the taxes - opposing their reduction or abolition--Rumping 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Price
The article says that the price of the tea was a penny and the average worker made... But is that a penny an ounce, or a penny a ton? And what amount did the average worker consume each day? Rmhermen (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
People who made them pay taxes they put hot tar on them and around that they put feathers on them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.240.114 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

lol, we're not talking about slaves here. you got it all mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.36.91 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Some Answers
Please see if this is correct. The Tea Act was in 1773 because soon after the Boston Tea party occured in 1773. Then in the BTP they dumped 342 crates of tea (American Pagent AP US History textbook). I just wonder how much is in the 342 crates. Also the tax collectors were tared and feathered, but too a lesser degree than the Stamp tax collectors.

Alcas


 * You are right. There were about 10 bricks of tea in each crate. To see what a tea brick  looked like click this link:  http://www.accordtea.com/images/ac700px/tea%20brick%204.jpg But the Boston tea Party was a result of the Tea Act. Sisgoofball4eva (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i think it was about ten tons of tea but im not sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.117.77 (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Ups
This page really could use some professional information. Any one here can edit this page to make it better..... --SylvieHorse (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs a redo
As stated by the first commenter, this article once again needs a complete rewrite. Very unprofessional and only 3 sources. For such a historical act this article should be significantly better. Unquenchablefire (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)