Come in and test your knowledge brehs

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Take as long as you need breh.

Again, if you think the majority of posters in this thread have it wrong, why can't you just explain what you think the answer is? It's painfully obvious you're either just trollin or realized that your initial answer was wrong and now you don't want to admit to being wrong. You're not fooling anybody.

 

[NoChillJones]

"A guy walks into a store and steals $100 from the register without the owners knowledge. 5 minutes later he comes back in and buys $70 worth of goods with the $100. The owner gives back $30 in change. How much money did the owner lose?"

170 dollars. The 70 used to pay for the products was his own money. So he gave the products away and retained nothing...

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The only thing that matters in this entire story is the 100 stolen. Literally everything stated after that is a normal everyday business interaction.

Technically not true, considering the fact the "guy" used the stolen $100 to buy $70 worth of goods and was given $30 in change. As the OP clearly states "A guy walks into a store and steals $100 from the register without the owners knowledge. 5 minutes later he comes back in and buys $70 worth of goods with the $100".

 

[Gold]

Technically not true, considering the fact the "guy" used the stolen $100 to buy $70 worth of goods and was given $30 in change. As the OP clearly states "A guy walks into a store and steals $100 from the register without the owners knowledge. 5 minutes later he comes back in and buys $70 worth of goods with the $100".

The fact that he used the same $100 is completely irrelevant.
It changes nothing.
He could have used a different $100 bill and nothing changes

What you have here is 1 theft, and 1 normal business interaction.
The two have nothing to do with other

 

[mannyrs13]

The store owner should be happy it wasn't an armed robbery. Could've lost something more valuable.

 

[Gold]

170 dollars. The 70 used to pay for the products was his own money. So he gave the products away and retained nothing...

He didn't give the products away, he sold them.
The same way he would sell any other product on any other day.

 

[morris]

$130

The initial theft caused the prosperity of the inventory to be less as this was a profit the owner lost out on.

The $70, while not technically a profit, would show on the invoices if the owner was ever audited.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The fact that he used the same $100 is completely irrelevant.
It changes nothing.
He could have used a different $100 bill and nothing changes

What you have here is 1 theft, and 1 normal business interaction.
The two have nothing to do with other

They do since he's technically giving the money back to buy $70 worth of goods + $30 change. The $100 bill itself doesn't matter, edit: but the act of money stolen + the exact transaction does.

 

[Gold]

They do since he's technically giving the money back to buy $70 worth of goods + $30 change. The $100 bill itself doesn't matter, but the act of using money that he stole from the owner does.

No breh... it really really really doesn't... at all.

I dont know how to explain this to you, so just trust me.

 

[BaldingSoHard]

Hey it's this thread again...

 

[jerniebert]

In terms of cash it's only 30.

 

[whatthatthangsmelllike]

Lost $30 cash and $70 worth of goods

 

[[REDACTED]]

$100 it says it in the question

 

[Gmack]

Oh its $100

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

The owner has already paid for that product regardless if he sells it or not. If you steal that product from the owner, you rob him of his ability to make whatever the markup would be on those product. Thats assuming he would sell it if it wasn't stolen. Technically he's only out what he paid, not what he expected to make.
But we aren't giving the markup so i'm assuming its like a physics question with no friction or air resistance given... you assume none.


If we aren't assuming 0, then he would lose the $100 worth of merchandise + markup
You mean minus the markup? Why would you lose the markup you added on TOP of what you paid as the owner? If he paid $95 for the merchandise and sold it for $100 (even tho the thief is using his og $100), the owner makes up $5 and is only out $95, not $105

So we're assuming the owner is buying AND selling the product at face value? b/c that's the only way $70 cash= $70 of merchandise
$30 cash=$30 cash
$70 merchandise=/= $70 cash

How bout this scenario: What if the thief steals $100 cash vs $100 of post tax merchandise? Is the loss to the owner the same?
I would say no b/c the markup is added to the merchandise, and the owner paid less than $100 for it. In that case you have to take into consideration (and subtract from the loss) the markup portion of the $70 in the OP.
If you say yes then you have to make more assumptions, including that the owner is buying $100 of merchandise for $100 and selling it for $100