Best Answer
The tax imposed by the crown was actually lower than than taxes paid in England. The problem was we were not consulted or given a voice on the issue. The King tried to pass it off so that later on other taxes imposed on the colonies could be done without consent because we didn't argue about having a tax lowered.
Pure and simple it was a way to impose control without consent.
The answer would be B !!!!
Answer:
binding arbitration would end unrestricted economies all through a large part of the economy. Government authorities could direct wages and working conditions to any organization sufficiently disastrous to be coordinated.
binding arbitration would do the same amount of harm to laborers' privileges. They would lose all resources as of now accessible to them. Endorsers would lose their entitlement to decide on sanctioning the agreement they should work under, and they couldn't strike over the last agreement, regardless of how awful it is. Restricting intervention gives laborers an agreement if they like it.
binding arbitration could likewise cost laborers their annuities. Associations are probably going to press the mediator to constrain recently coordinated specialists to join a multi-manager association benefits plan, and in enterprises where these plans are normal, the judge would almost certainly concur.
Explanation:
With organization enrollment in consistent decay, Coordinated Work faces a decision. It can accomplish the difficult work important to shed the New Arrangement model that actually shapes its obsolete approach and adjust to the present economy. Or on the other hand it can utilize its political muscle and get Congress to make it simpler to constrain laborers to join.
