what's the correct answer /b/?

$100

>>727236755
30$

>>727236755

Define "lose"

100

70 in product,
30 in cash

you people are all fucking idiots

$100 - profit of $70 worth of stuff = xy

>>727236755
30 bucks and 70 dollars worth of groceries you faggot

>>727236755

$130

100 dollars taken away.
30 dollars given as change.

Disregard the 70 dollars in goods because the shop is essentially paying for its own wares.

Once the $100 is stolen, it is irrelevant where the thief spends the money, even if it's at the original store.

130.
Used to do this scam

60 dollars

Depends how much the goods cost the shop owner

100 + 70 + 30 = 200

>>727236755
$170. $100 cash and $70 worth of goods

Nothing. The mentioned theft is just a capitalist lie abstracting a taxation structure that helped $70 worth of oats be allocated where they were needed.
Do not overthink it, brother.

File: dfzgd.jpg (242KB, 1600x1124px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1600x1124px

>>727237361
I agree with this

$100

200$ the owner lost in all ways. cash and goods

Depends on COGS

>>727237287
>100 dollars taken away
but she gave it back in return for $70 worth of goods dumbass

>>727236755
- 100 theft
+100 bill is given
-70 goods are lost
-30 change is given.
-------------------------------------
- $100 is the answer.

>>727237999
yeah it's $100, trips have spoken

>>727236755
He sold some product after losing 100... That means he had profit AFTER losing the money, so I guess he lost 80-90

>>727237986

No you dumbdumb, she didn't GIVE anything back. She exchanged 70 dollars of stolen cash for 70 dollars worth of the store's good. Don't open a business, you'll go bankrupt.

>>727236755
In cash, the owner lost $30. However, the owner also gave away free goods, since the lady used $70 of the businesses' own money to purchase those goods. So depending on how they valuate those goods, there will also be a loss of inventory.

Simple version: The owner lost $100, $70 in goods and $30 in cash. The real world isn't that simplistic though.

>>727236755
Okay but why isn't there a multiple choice for the first part of the question "How smart are you?....."

>A. Smarter than you because I know that there should only be three dots in an ellipses

>>727237999
$70 is the sales price for customers at the store. The owner would have bought them for less than that to make a profit. So the owner is losing what he paid for them.

>>727238254
And YOU, are overthinking it.

$100

>>727238244
Ellipsis is the singular; ellipses is the plural.

>>727238188
exactly

>>727238184
Semantics. The point is that at the end of the sequence there is only $30 less in the cash register than there was before, and $70 worth of goods stolen, so the answer is $100

>>727236755

Thief takes 100 dollars. Shopkeep is at -100 dollars.

The thief hands the shopkeep 100 dollars. Shopkeep now at 0

Shopkeep gives the thief 30 dollars
Shopkeep is now at -30

Thief walks out of store with 70 dollars in groceries. Assuming that 1 dollar of groceries=1 dollar in assets for the shopkeep the shopkeep is back to -100.

The thief has stolen no additional money. No additional assets. The thief has come back and transferred 70 dollars of the shopkeepers money (one asset) into 70 dollars of groceries (another, presumably equally valuable asset).

Calling these assets "groceries" or "change" is just getting us away from the simple + or - of assets.

The question then says "don't over think it" this is intentionally misleading and the question wants us to jump to the conclusion that our initial knee jerk reaction that the thief is getting like 200 dollars worth of stuff is correct. It isn't, she maintains 100 dollars of the shopkeepers assets and the shopkeeper remains 100 dollars behind.

>>727238254
Wrong. He got the correct price for his goods. Ergo, he got what he would have got even if no theft ever occurred, so that doesn't even enter in to it. All that is lost is the $100 that was stolen.

>>727238392

It's not semantics. If you lose 30 dollars by giving away change, the residual 30 dollars she stole from you still in her purse, and 70 dollars worth of stolen goods, then the store has lost $130 dollars.

Don't open a business, you'll go bankrupt.

File: Screen-Shot-2013-03-20-at-17.31.59.png (266KB, 477x388px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 477x388px

She swiped $100.
-100
Bitch had the nerve to take groceries...
-70
...and then pay him with his own money.
+70
But she pays with the $100 bill and gets change
-30
So now we have a balance of -$130

if you don't overthink it...

>>727238544

Thank you, anon.

>>727238523
>the residual 30 dollars she stole from you still in her purse
what the fuck are you talking about, she gave him the $100 bill back and he gave her $30 change. where is this extra $30 in her purse coming from?

The owner lost 100.
Years pass.
Someone buys something worth 70, from that he has earned 10.
So that changed the margin from -100 to -90.

Once the thief steals the $100, that's the end of the problem. He's out $100.

A completely different customer could come in and pay for a $70 order with their own $100 and it would affect the records the same way. The thief isn't relevant anymore.

File: Was only pretending.jpg (95KB, 909x839px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 909x839px

>>727236755
For the retards that don't understand basic math

>Stole 100 dollars
(Debt at 100$)
>Exchange 100$ for 70$ worth of groceries
(Debt at 70$)
>Receive 30$ in change
(Debt at 100$)

>>727236912
>>727237287
>>727237434
>>727237547
>>727237571
>>727237908
Neck yourselves.

100.

If the thief takes 100 and buys 70 dollars of goods, the shop is still out that 100 dollars. Then, he gives 30 dollars in change back, but that's part of the original 100 dollars, so it's not new money lost. She doesn't get an extra 30 dollars on top of the 100 dollars she originally took. She just gets the 100 dollars: 70 dollars of goods + 30 dollars in change.

>>727236755
>Green

Step 1: owner loses $100 cash
Step 2: owner receives $100 cash
Step 3: owner gives $70 product
Step 4: owner gives $30 cash

Net Cash = -100+100-30 = -30
Net Product =-70
Net Sum = -30-70 = -100

Not including income tax on the $70 sale

>>727238650

I missed that detail. Conceded.

>>727238425
So the shopkeep buys his merch for the same price he sells it for? Have you ever been to Walmart?

What if she's a feminist?

>>727238965
Then she's entitled to his money and he loses for being a male.

>>727238544

No, it's 100, she gave him 100 and got 30 in change (+100 - 30 = 70)

You've done (+100 - 30 = 70) and then done - 30 again

>>727237059
this.

https://youtu.be/QiCzI6Mac58

>>727238544
>..and then pay him with his own money.
>+70

no, that's +100

>>727238912
Doesn't matter. The value of the goods to the market is 70 dollars, so the value lost is 70 dollars of goods because he never got to sell those goods for money that wasn't stolen from him.

>>727236755
Feet? http://fuckmytoes.com

File: heh.png (1MB, 840x1584px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 840x1584px

>>727236755

If you lose $100 from your till, the till is down $100 regardless of if this thief comes back. On the books, the owner lost $100. Them coming back is a normal transaction, correct change given. Your till is still down $100 at the end of business.

C

>>727238544
>don't overthink it
Nice smugpic. You're still retarded and wrong.
See
>>727238857
>>727238786

File: 1488257597069.png (16KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 800x600px

>>727236755
SEVENTY DOLLARS PLUS THE MERCHANT PRICE OF THE GOODS

>>727238544
That would be

>Steal $100 in cash
-100 balance (from owner's perspective)
>Buy $70 in groceries
-170 balance
>Pay with $100
-70 balance
>Receive $30 in change
>-100 balance

It balances out so he remains at a $100 loss
-

>>727239387
this
now can we all please abandon thread?

17 dollars

Girl Robs: -100
Girl take things: -70
Girl pays: +100
Girl change: -30

>-100+100-30-70=-100.
$100.

Benjamin. One.

File: 1490047250781.jpg (20KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x374px

Y'ALL ARE ALL FUCKING RETAREDED

Think about the register total. 100 dollars missing get out back in. 30 dollars are taken out and now the store inventory is short for 70 dollars worth of product. So C would be the correct answer.

The owner lost 100 dollars you stupid fucks it says so in the second line.
"...lady walks into the store and steals $100 bill"

-100
-70
+100
-30
=
-$100

>>727239882
>get put back in

>>727239665
Keep in mind, the store owner doesn't get the full value on the goods he sells.
Only the difference in the markup, minus taxes.

He lost a lot more than $100; and given how low the value is, it's probably not even worth claiming the loss through insurance, as the deductible is going to be WAY higher than the paltry sum of $100.

He lost $100 because she stole them, why would he lose anything during the trade, he exchanged his goods for her money, he didn't give her 70 dollars worth of goods, the transaction is equal for both of them (given that we don't Know how much he spent to have it).
If you start a business thinking you lose money everytime someone buys you something, quit now.

$100, assuming the shit she bought was worth exactly the $70 she paid

Dat Bitch ho stole 100 from the till.

Slap her weave off right here, honey, cuz the next two steps are legit.

At the end, she holds $70 (groceries) + 30 change. The same $100 she lifted in the first place.

~But dat bitch din't ha no munny t'begin wiff.

100$

She leaves with 70 dollars worth of product
She leaves with 30 dollars worth of cash

>>727240405
To the store owner, he probably made $10 off that sale.
Gotta remember, the store is down a huge number for inventory. Inventory is marked up. Profit is made off that mark up. Taxes/wages/overhead cut into that profit.

Store owner made $5 off that transaction now.

>>727240526
And the owner leaves (Well, stays...) with 100$ cash, important thing is that she stole 100 beforehand

File: 1311286250833.jpg (121KB, 500x451px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x451px

>>727240203
>>727239182
The store owner originally stocked those goods for the wholesale price, let's say $40. He was expecting a $70 retail sale to net a profit of $30.

After the goods are stolen, he has to restock by spending another $40. So the net effect of the theft is that the store owner "loses" $40 in restocking costs. The retail price doesn't matter.

The true answer to the question is that he lose $30 in cash and some unknown amount less than $70 in wholesale costs.

There is probably a more subtle aspect here which is the insurance implications of goods that are insanely marked up, like diamonds. The seller would be losing a potential sale, but if they are insuring diamonds for retail price, then reimbursement from a diamond theft would far outweigh the real value of the goods.


>He lost a lot more than $100
I don't know where you got that from, it's actually less

>>727241020
Insurance isn't an option with such a low value of loss. Deductible would be $500 minimum.

>>727241020
You're right, it is less. Because he made some back on the sale... technically.

File: 555432.jpg (343KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1920x1080px

>>727236755
Actually none of you faggots are right.

Businesses operate on a profit margin. the $70 of groceries that the woman bought were not a $70 loss to the owner. If you assume a reasonable 30% markup over cost, the $70 worth of groceries only cost the owner about $54.

$54 in goods
$30 in change from the stolen $100
~$84 loss

Faggots.

>>727241453
Full God-damned unicorn, aren't you?

$100

$70 in goods
$30 change

they get the $100 back but continue to lose $70 in product and $30 in change

they have lost $100

faggots

>>727241453

but they'd still have made $70 if they weren't stolen. FAGGOT.

Its fucking f all u dumb twats forget the grocery are worth 70$ the questions ask how much did the owner loss not just cash

The real loser is the thief because they have lost their soul to Satan :) :) :) :) :) :)

>>727242879
Not if she asks forgiveness on her death bed.
That's all you need to do is ask Jesus to forgive you. Done. Clean slate. Steal God's cigar and buttfuck hit wife.
It's Heaven, bitch! Time to have FUN!

The amount would be the same if she had just stolen 30 and never can back.

>>727236755
200 you fucking tards. She stole the 100 from the guy and used it to buy 70 bucks worth of shit with 30 dollars of change (meaning the owner did not know it was stolen).

The owner lost 200 dollars total.

>>727242516
But that's not a loss. It's just profit that he didn't make. Absence of a positive doesn't mean it's a negative.

>>727241957
Critical thinking harder

$100 - his markup

$100 is the correct answer - any other is wrong.

She steals $100.
At the end - the shop owner does not have any extra or less money from the theft - so they're still down $100.

Depends how good the guy's accountant is. I could turn that $100 into a fucking loss carryover and this prick wouldn't have to pay taxes for ten years.

A shitty accountant would recognize $70 in revenue and tax the poor fuck for getting his own money back.

>>727243774
No 100 is wrong since he still loses 70 dollars worth of products along with 100 dollars at the start.

The owner loses 200 total since the hundred was stolen and used to buy 70 dollars with a product and he unknowingly gives her 30 dollars of stolen money in change.

So he loses 200 dollars not 100.

>>727236755
$0, he got it all back when he wrote it off as a loss on his taxes.

>>727244018
She paid for the 70 of goods with the stolen 100.

>>727244018
"How much did the owner lose?"
She steals $100
She GIVES BACK $70 for $70 worth of product - this is an EXCHANGE at this point, and the owner makes no money. The owner then returns $30 change from the $70 transaction returning the amount lost to $100.

>>727236755
c

>>727244156
The money is stolen therefore she steals 70 more dollars with of product from the store not just the 100.

Then she gets 30 dollars worth of change so in the end 170 or 200 dollars of product is stolen even if she payed with the already stolen 100.

>>727244093

You have no fucking clue how taxes work.

>>727244331
the seventy dollar things cancels itself out he is giving her 70 dollars and she is giving him 70 dollars

>>727244018

I hope this is bait, nobody is this retarded.

>>727244338
If I take a $20 bill from you, then give it back, and steal it out of your pocket again and kick you in the balls I don't magically have $40 and you didn't lose $40.

$100. That's it.
If she bought $70 worth or goods before she stole the $100 would it change what she stole? If she used that $100 somewhere else would she then be stealing from the other place?

No.

It is $100

>>727244630
Go speak with some people in low-income housing.

No, not everyone there will be stupid, but you'll run into complete retards like this for sure.

There are people out there who manage to seem normal before you speak to them, but are almost too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The answer is $200
Let’s look at it this way
I come to your house
And I steal your TV
I come back and sell your TV back to you
How many times have you purchased your own TV?
You’re just happy you have your TV back though right?
Not to mention the thief now has your money

>>727236755
30

>>727236755
$30
He goes from ballence 0,
to -100
theft generates 70 in legit sales

so final loss is 30

How is the answer not $170? If they stole $100 and then “bought” $70 worth of your merchandise with your own $ (because they stole the $ from your register) AND you gave them back $30 (this is from the original $100 so it wasn’t anything extra like the merchandise)… wouldn’t bag equal the $100 from the register plus the $70 of merchandise being a loss?

>>727244997
>"legit sales"

You're a moron - the items were purchased with money stolen from him, so he breaks even in amount lost.

>>727239182
The question is how much did he lose, though. Not how much value was lost. That's why this question chugs cock. If he paid 1$ for the goods she paid 70$ for, then he's only out 69$.

The answer is 100.
Regardless of any 'honest' transactions past the point of the robbery, his final amount at the end of the night will show that he is only missing 100.

>>727245121
Think of it this way:

Shop loses $100 from register as a result of theft.

Register debt: -$100

You use the stolen money to buy $70 worth of product. This lowers the register debt to -$30, but also adds -$70 debt in lost product.

Register Debt: -$30
Product Debt: -$70
Total Debt: -$100

This is of course without overthinking the amount lost in products as requested by the original question.

>>727245470
if he only paid $1 cost for the goods then he only lost $31. He lost the $30 of change from the stolen and returned 100, then the $1 worth of products.

>>727246054
Actually, no.
It's still a $100 loss.
The fact the woman came back is irrelevant.
At that point, she's just another customer.
On the balance sheets, he's going to be down $100 from the till. That's it. Product will add up just fine. But the till is down by $100 no matter what.

>>727244348
You can deduct the full amount of a theft in the case of stolen money, provided you file a police report and provide evidence of the theft.
>But anon you can't fully write off the value of goods at the sale price
He is a store owner and likely jewish so he will be aware of that and report the theft of the cash instead of the $70 of merchandise and $30 of cash lost.

>>727237598
<3

>>727246195
the question is not "how short is his register going to be". the question is "how much did the owner lose?"

>>727246544
see
>>727245809

It's $100

>>727246054
True, I wrote that wrong. So what's the tally then? How much did he actually lose? The money he paid for the goods minus the stolen 100$ plus the returned 70$. You do the math, I'm kinda hammered. Then we're the winners.

>>727236755
They're all wrong.

The owner lost
- $100
- $70 worth of goods
- and then lost $30

$70 in goods is still not $70.

>>727246544
The owner only lost that which was in the register.
The goods purchased are irrelevant. As anyone could have bought those goods.
The reason I bring up the till is that it's going to show exactly what's missing.
Which, in this case, is $100.

>>727236755
This almost got me, I kept overthinking it and for some reason thought it was $30. The answer is $100. The clerk loses $100 to start, then she comes back and with that same $100 buys $70 worth of shot with a $100. Meaning the clerk is now down $70 in product, but since he has to return change, the extra $30 goes back to the woman making it $100 regardless of whether or not she returns.

>>727236755
She stole $100.
Bought $70 worth of goods and got $30 in change.
But by doing that, the owner got his $100 back.
So the net loss is $70 in goods + $30 cash = $100

>>727247417
Ignore the product, it's irrelevant.
At that point, she's just another custy with a C-Note.
Still down the original $100 regardless of what she does with it.

>don't over think it
-$100
This is because it doesn't matter if it's her or someone else, paying $100 and getting your change just counts as any regular purchase, so it's only important that $100 was stolen.
>Over think it
$0, most stores following policy would never have that much in the register in the first place, much less leave it unattended.

Fucking morons everywhere. It's $100.
Only $100 are unaccounted for.
Inventory will be accounted for, but the drawer will be $100 short.

If you can't grasp this concept you should seriously consider killing yourself and quickly as possible.

>>727236755
Working in a place that this has happened before, you only lose the initial $100. The $70 in merchandise is all accounted for, but at the end of the night, you're going to be $100 short no matter what you do. The $30 is a redundance.

>>727247902
>>727247847
>>727247623

u idoits cant give away 70 of grocerys for free.
100+70=170
the 30 doesnt count cuz it came from the 100

3 guys check into a hotel. They share a shitty torpid room for 30$. Later, the fucktard manager calls their room, and says he overcharged them. The room was actually 25$. Manager gives the extra 5$ to the bellboy to deliver. The sneaky shit steals 2$ of the $5 on the way up the pissy stairs, then gives each wanker a dollar back. So now the 3 mouth breathers have spent 9$ each, making 27$ total. Plus the bellboy boy junky's $2, that makes $29. Where's the extra dollar, and who ends up in the river because of it.

File: fullwoke.jpg (31KB, 558x438px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 558x438px

>>727236755
He still lost $100... because now she's effectively stolen $70 dollars worth of goods and $30 cash.

>>727238544
I see where you're coming from, but your process is wrong.

Bitch swipes $100
-100

Bitch gives the $100 back in exchange for good and change
+100

Now the goods...
-70

And the residual change...
-30

That leaves us with (-70)+(-30) which equals -100
Store is down $100, assuming the groceries were valued to the store at $70 and not whatever the store payed for them, but that would be overthingking.

>>727248104
No one's giving the groceries away. They are bought and paid for. Like any other customer before her.
Which makes the groceries irrelevant.

>>727248104
Don't over think it
If she bought those items with the money she stole the store owner still lost that money.

>>727248125
30-5=25
5-2=3
25+3=28

The problem with you faggots IS YOU ARE ALL OVERTHINKING IT. You dumbfucks keep adding markups and values to the groceries when the problem could just as easily be

100-100+100-70-30 AND IT WOULD BE $hole point of the question is that it tricks you by applying real world values to vague numbers instead of just giving you the numbers, then tells you not to overthink it. You all just keep overthinking it.

>>727248125
They never spent $9 (27 total) each. They spent $9.33. Your rounding accounts for the "missing" $1

>>727248961
This.

>>727236755
130$ are you guys mental even a elementry kid can do this

Don't hate people that don't understand why you only lose $100 in this scenario. Most people are very bad at this kind of math because they are only ever taught simple one way equations.

In fact people are so bad at it that it is still the number one form of till fraud, surpassing phony returns. It is sometimes called change raising which is to confuse the cashier by adding extra money to the total and asking for change and then as they start to count you add more money and ask for a different set of bills.

The numbers are hard to count quickly and the back and forth transaction can cover your tracks when it all seems to add up when you count it all going in one direction.

Also lets be real, $70 of product is really only $40 to the store so you add that to the $30 in stolen cash and bam $70 worth of theft.

>>727236755
Yup 100 bucks

>>727236755
$100 +man hours and restocking fees, so its more like 180$ depending on which product she took off the shelves and people working the departments that it would take to replace the shrink.

>>727237287
Do you know what's Change?It's 100 bucks

>>727238786
Why did she receive 30 bucks? sorry im retarded

>>727249463
There is no extra job hours because of this scenario so there is no additional cost in man hours. Also as a small business owner I am here to tell you that there is no such thing as a restocking fee or rather there is but you already pay for it every time you shop.

File: 1489202331358.jpg (87KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x602px

>>727236755
-30+-70=-100
100-70=30
70+30=100
7+3 = 10
((10+3)-7)+3=9
9*100=900
((10-3)+7)-3 = 11
900+11=911

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! ITS ALL CLEAR TO ME NOW!!!

>>727249625
she stole the 30 out of the register and use it

>>727248942
> 100-100+100-70-30

Wait... my maths is pretty shitty, but I'm pretty sure that equals 0.
No way the shopkeep didn't lose money somewhere down the line

>>727249658
i meant restocking as in ordering more to replace the shrink, true no additional manhours will be used, but the ones used could of been used to make the poor kids scrub your floors or clean the warehouse.

>>727249625
The product she paid for with the stolen $100 was priced at $70. The cashier doesn't know the bill was stolen so they give the thief $30 in change thinking it is owed to the customer.

>>727236755
Wait is not 100 is around 170 or 200 bucks because the groceries were just technically just giving to her for free which means the store loss 170

>>727246363

Yeah... deduct from income. Not his tax liability. Dumbshit.

>spotted the poorfag who doesn't pay taxes anyway.

Forgot to mention that one of the jackass boarders steals 100$ from the register later. He then orders 100$ of crap snacks from the theiving bellboy. The other two shitbirds look at the delivered poopy snacks, and raid the proprietor's ass candy stash, in exactly the same amounts as ordered by assclown #1. Now who gets their patellas destroyed?

>>727249771
>ordering more to replace the shrink
Shrink is the loss of profit, you can't replace it. Being 1 item down in inventory is a normal procedure during normal restocking whos costs are already built into the price paid by people who did not steal. There is no loss of money there.

Also you missed the point of job hours vs man hours. There is no additional task in dealing with stolen product so no man hours are lost anywhere.

>>727236755
he lost $30 he gave her in change, plus $70 in product.

but with standard retail markup, he prob only paid ~$35 for that product.

The owner really lost around $65.

It's $170 including the products that were lost

>>727244156
The money is a loss, regardless. The merchandise is a loss. The change is a loss as well.

>Thief can hack a till but uses this power to only steal $100 bills

why tho.

>>727250180
This you guy's are not taking the products into consideration

>>727250426
>>727250180
This is what I saaid earlier. No one thinks about the food. $70 of food is loss.

File: 1477297959888.jpg (73KB, 506x625px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 506x625px

>>727237287
>$130

Proprietor lost 0. If he's any good.

The owner has lost $200

Black woman steals the original $100
Buys $70 item
Receives $30 change

At this point it seems like the owner has only lost the $70 item and $30 change because he got the original $100 back, but the original $100 was used to purchase other items in his store which is now a loss of $100 as well. So the owner has lost $200

The moral is: Never let blacks into your store.

>>727236755
$107.25

$70 in product
$30 in cash
$7.25 in labor

>>727250565
Are you hungry? I'll buy you a pizza. I'm not rich but I'm feeling a starving vibe.

>>727250929
I love that she's now black.

>>727250963
There is no labor cost associated with theft. Own a business faggot.

>>727251089
I pictured hispanic does that make me a bad person?

>>727250565
Yeah but if it was perfume you're out $20 bucks and you will make it up in your next sale.

100-70=30
The store got 70 bucks back
But the good's were still pay with store money that didn't belong to her,but belonged to the store which means they lost 70 bucks,plust the 30 bucks that she got
100 bucks were loss that day

>>727251230
Unless it's your employees. Own a bar faggot.

$170 because she stole $100 first then got $70 more in groceries. Retards.

*farts mightly*

>>727251466
It takes no time to steal and if this person was employed there she obviously wasn't working then. Don't double dip for no reason you mongoloid.

>>727251089
I cant eat pizza anymore because im lacktose intolerit

>>727250929
Put the owner got 70 bucks back but the goods still count as a loss of 70 bucks plus the 30 change is 100

>>727251295
Yes, you may be absolutely terrible. Go to confession and reconcile your societally indoctrinated stereotypes. Then come over for pizza, and bring a cute mexican.

>>727251694

It'd be a lot easier to steal while you're working rather than sneaking around on your day off faggot.

>>727237059
Except that retail value of product is less than the wholesale price the owner paid for the product. So the exact amount he lost depends on the markup of all of the items sold.

His total net loss may actually be closer to $70, but of course the answer they want is $100, write a real answer on some core math bullshit guaranteed you are getting it wrong.

>>727251532
Bou are you retarded the owner got 70 bucks back , so It doesn't count as a loss

>>727237059
This guy is smart exactly what im trying to prove

>>727236755
obviously 200

>>727252051
He lost it as groceries you idiot. Kys

>>727252036
But we are not taking that into consideration we are just assuming the goods is worth 70$ retail price or not

>>727252189
Boy then is 100 bucks not 170 KYS

>>727251694
Hey, rude ass. I owned, worked, and stole from my family's bar for decades. My dad, who would beat your dad into a fucking seizure by the way, encouraged it. Pre-taxes and all that. Please suck a big fat fart right out of my asshole.

>>727236755
about tree fiddy

>>727252189
>>727252189
Look the store owner loss 70 bucks on goods and 30 in change which equals 100 bucks

Normal mark-up on goods is roughly 40%....So, he had a $30 sale, and made about $12 back, since all money was stolen.

Original loss of $100, minus the $12 he recouped = He is out $88, give or take.

As far as the law goes, he is out $100

>>727236755
More than $30 less than $100.

>$30 cash
>$70 retail value of merchandise
>probably $20-$50 actually value of merchandise

>>727252819
Best answer in this poop string thread. Cheers mate!

>>727236755
technically only $170
>$100 from the till
+
>$70 worth of shit

How is this difficult again?

>>727254289
That's what I've been telling these shitlords. Duh

>>727254289
Yeah but she gives 70 back

>>727254551
I mean, regardless of fancy equations and considering whether or not you count the money being stolen in the first place in the over-all total, the simple facts are:

>bitch stole $100
>bitch then paid for $70 worth of shit WITH said stolen $100
>bitch got $70 worth of shit and $30 in change back.

Regardless of how it's spent where, the store lost money

>>727253369
This makes no sense. Applying some flat mark up rate shows your extensive history in the polluted bazaars of countries still lacking latrines. I'm quite sure OP was referring to a 1st world setting, punjab.

>>727236755
30 dollars and 70 in merch

>>727254808
Ohhh!!! But he lost the 70 because she spent it on groceries!!! Fuck! I'm a faggot and a retard.

>>727249673
7-Eleven was an inside job.

>>727236755
slightly less than 100 dollars since she wouldn't have bought the 70 dollars worth of goods had she not had the 100. and the owner would have made money off of that sell. obviously. so it depends on how much they made on the sale

>>727236755
C. 100

minus the difference on the merchandise markups and insurance premiums and shrink claim.

>>727254808
I guess it depends on the perception of the situation from different points of view.

>If store
We lost 100 from the till as well as $70 worth of merch. Doesn't matter if the money stolen was used to pay for the product, it's still $100 missing at the end of the day when the register closes out and when inventory is counted later (I work as a cashier, I know this shit)

>if woman
The store only lost $30 because I stole $100 but returned the $100 for $70 worth of stuff so I only technically stole $30

>if bystander
The store lost $100 because she stole $100 then returned and bought $70 worth of merch with stolen money. in the end it's $30 cash and $70 merch

>>727255110
The answer is 100. She spent the stolen money on goods, so that's 70 bucks lost, then 30 in change. 100.

>>727255110
that

>>727252036
This.

Only other motherfucker in the thread that thinks like an economist.

>>727255373
>100 cash
>spent on in-store marked up march tho
Oh damn
>+ that insurance adjustment tho
Oh fuk
>+ the shrink claim covering the $100
>but then corporate penalties
>and the payroll it takes to file them
>o diggity damn
>but you can always fire the teller
>but it costs $$$ to hire new ones
fuk mi

What did she gain? Her net is his loss.
She gained 30 in cash and 70 in goods.
Therefore, he lost 30 in cash and 70 in goods.

File: imwhite.jpg (286KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1200x900px

>>727256099
Those fuckin variables tho famalam

130-profitofproducts faggots

First he loses 100 of cash after It he returns 30 un cash

But we have to calculate how much profit does he recieve from the 70 in product

Wait it's 100. Doesnt matter if she bought shit after, she stole 100. Her transactions afterward are completely irrelevant.

>>727255380
I was with the woman answer and store answer, but yeah I guess it depends on how you perceive it. That's why I said two answers are right really.