People are getting it wrong and actually arguing that their answer is right, going through all these mathematical equations. No equations are necessary.
This Should Be Very Simple To Figure Out
83 Comments on This Should Be Very Simple To Figure Out
Comments are closed.
$100.00
Doesn’t it depend on the race of the perp?
100$. PERIOD. THAT is how much was STOLEN.
Are you sure you didn’t just misgender the alleged thief?
See, like AOC said, they only steal to feed their families…
Pretty sure that store was located in Oakland Ca. So it’s all good.
The second transaction is legal.
$130.00
$170
$100.
$200
One million dollars!
$200
$100 – the wholesale cost of the item purchased = $lost.
The store is out $100.
(wait a few days)
The store is now out $101.
(wait a few days)
The store is now out $102.
(wait a few days)
The store is now out $103.
(wait a few days)
The store is now out $104.
The real thief is the Fed.
100 dollars.
He also broke several Commandments.
They got the $100 bill back that he stole, so they lost the $70 item and the $30 change.
Total loss = $100.
Ask bidepends.
He’s an expert at this.
Don’t forget the THREE FIDDY for the Loch Ness Monster!
Come on Uh-ohh.
The thief had possession of effectively stolen items at two different times:
1) 100 dollars
After a legit transaction:
2) $70 of merch, $30 cash
It’s kinda like our government, income taxes and refunds.
If he gets home without the hash browns and biscuits there’s gonna be trouble.
It was actually less than $100 loss to the merchant since the thief bought items for $70 bucks that likely cost the merchant $30-55.
Therefore, let’s say 85 bucks…
I estimated $200 considering the cost of employees required to man the register, stock shelves, the bookkeeping involved in trying to figure what took place, and the increase in insurance premiums if this was turned in to the insurance company. It’s probably greater than $200.
joe6, the employees are there regardless.
Just curious how he only managed to steal 100 cash?
Why not drain the register and then come back with a bag and loot the 70 bucks worth of merch?
What happens after the theft of the $100 bill consists of details that look relevant but aren’t.
Whether the thief went back to the store and bought something and got change, or I went to the store, or yo mama went to the store makes no difference. So what if the thief used the stolen bill to buy something? Does anyone think that if that thief had used a different C-note and not the one he stole that the store’s situation would in any way be different?
The thief stole a C-note, and so the store is out $100.
And as Loco would say, Period.
The store lost $100.
The store lost $100.00 in legal terms.
The thief lost his soul in Biblical terms.
Of course George Floyd went a different route and used a counterfeit $20 to purchase some cheap cigars to roll his dope into.
He also had drugs up his ass.
Yet biden* mentioned his “murder” to a bunch of ignorant black men dupes who should have run the lying cocksucker off the stage.
What’s lacking in the calculation is the additional expense a store owner incurs as a result of illegal activity by the customers. Whether it’s shoplifting, pulling money from the till, or guards at the front door. If it was a simple math problem the store owner would be pleased as hell.
Even with those deductions joe6, the store sells retail to make a profit.
The fact is, the store would have lost more had he not purchased $70 of their over-priced shit and went to Walmart…
Therefore the total = < $100
P E R I O D
Uncle Al
You seemed to have skipped over the increased insurance rates for general liability and loss of inventory.
Joe6 is a biz guy. And while he didn’t quite itemize it, his number is spot on.
All the things listed are typical costs of doing business.
Just like paying of Stormy, these are already baked into the cake.
The fact is, it costs $100 initially, then it was decreased by the thief buying $70 worth of merch.
The loss of only $100 would not cause the merchant to increase security, make an insurance claim etc.
Loco is right and you know it…
$150 the store lost 100 plus 50% for income taxes plus 10% for the big guy
.
@Brad, @Joe, No.
We have no information about what the shop keeper already pays for insurance, what his theft claims typically are, and whether or not the loss of that $100 will have an effect on his insurance. It easily could be nil. Plus, putting in a claim for the $100 may be the final trigger for the insurance company to cancel his insurance. Without any such data, it is incorrect to make assumptions.
So, again, given the information in the problem statement, the store is out $100.
Loco, if it was a one off incident you might be right. But the fact is is a recurring and increasing expense. I change my answer to a $300 loss for the store owner.
$160 the store lost 100 plus 50% for income taxes plus 10% for the big guy, damm I can’t even add numbers I made up
.
@Loco, you are making an invalid assumption: that the $70 spent by the thief to purchase an item would not have been spent by some other customer to purchase that item. Or are you assuming that the merchant put that item on the shelf not expecting it to sell?
If the thief forgot to buy or steal skittles and or gets shot by the PO PO the he will lose his entire store when George Soro’s BLM burns it down
30 dollars.
Uncle Al, you lost me there.
I assume he bought items at retail that the merch paid wholesale for.
Therefore he did the merchant a favor and lessened the blow by using the stolen $100 to buy items for $70 bucks that cost the merchant less than $70 bucks to put on the shelf.
“Other customers” are irrelevant to the equation.
Uncle Al
Really? I don’t know about the peeps that insure your biz, but the guys that insure mine are hot after my GL ledger on losses. Because if it’s repetitive it’s a problem.
It’s not rocket science to say that the merchant made a profit on the $70 purchase.
Otherwise why be in business?
Therefore the total loss was less than $100 bucks, let’s say $85
“Final answer…lock it in”
Of course grocery stores have tighter margins, I’m assuming this wasn’t one, more likely a convenience store…
Death to the American running dog capitalists.
The thief didn’t steal anything on his second visit. The store is out 100 ducats.
At the moment of the theft, the store lost $100 in money.
When the accounting is done for the day, the store lost $30 cash and $70 retail value of inventory.
But, I have no idea what columns those go in so, my accountant will figure it out. Just like he does with my small business cash and inventory…
He should have bought $100 worth of lottery tickets.
” Little Morphin’ Annie
It’s three spaces below COGS. I’m assuming you know what that is.
Once upon a time,
The power company drilled a deep hole for a power pole.
The farmers calf fell into the hole and died.
The power company said the calf was only worth $100.00 but the farmer argued the calf could have easily matured into a $700.00 beef….The power company was ordered to pay the farmer $700.00.
If he was a white male he stole $100
If any thing else or combination he didn’t steal anything. He was owed that much and more.
$200.
$100 initially, $70 worth of merchandise, and an additional $30 in change.
y = ∫ (s eᵡ) dx = seᵡ + c
where the constant of integration could be anything, from nagging to bacon.
QED
this is how I always won at Monopoly.
$200.
$100 stolen.
$70 worth of goods because the money wasn’t the thief’s to use.
$30 “change” because there would be no change if the $100 wasn’t stolen.
The answer is 100 bucks.
What if he went across the street to another store? Does that shopkeeper magically lose money because he is making purchases with a stolen 100-dollar bill?
Whatever happens across the street happens in the original store when the man uses the stolen 100 dollars to make a purchase.
What if he stole the original 100 dollars from another customer? Does the store incur all of these calculations I am seeing?
It’s 100 dollars.
Adjusting for bidenflation then multiplying by $20:00 hr democrat forced minimum wage, adding democrat communist lies, dividing by the number of violent rapists democrats have let into the country across the border democrats claim the store made $100.00.
The store is out -$170 because at the end of it all, they lost $100 in case and $70 in goods.
*cash
(damn)
How did they lose $70 in goods?
Yeah, but how many Fuel Perks did he get out of it?
$200
They lost the original $100, then $100 of groceries and change were handed out to someone who used the store’s own money.
That’s my guess
The 100 bucks was the last straw, the store is shutting down tomorrow morning.
It was in San Francisco and it’s a store desert now.
An honest math problem starts thus:
“A POC steals a $100 bill from a store’s register owned by a privileged caucasian.
How many excuses can we expect the Media, the JustUs System and guilt-burdened liberals to proffer to exonerate the perp??
$200
They lost the original $100, then $100 of groceries and change were handed out to someone who used the store’s own money.
That’s my guess>>>
But he has his original 100 dollars back. You can look at it as if he lost a 100-dollar bill, or he lost 70 dollars of goods and the change, but not both.
He lost 100 dollars.
Let’s break it down.
I have a 100-dollar bill and 10 ten-dollar bills in my register. I have 100 1-dollar cans of soda for sale. In total, with cash and inventory, I have $300.
While I wasn’t looking, some dude swiped the 100-dollar bill. I now have lost $100 dollars. I have a combination of $100 and $100 dollars worth of inventory= $200.
The thief then says, “I will take 70 cans of soda.”
He gives me the $100, I give him 70 cans of soda and $30 dollars change.
Now I have $170 in the till and 30 cans of soda = $200.
I lost $100.
The thief has 70 cans of soda and $30. He gained $100.
Fur is correct.
Transaction #1: Clerk forfeits $100 to thief.
Transaction #2: Thief gives $100 back to clerk, which cancels-out the first transaction.
Transaction #3: Thief puts $70 worth of items on counter, and clerk adds $30 cash to the pile.
Ergo: Thief leaves store with $100 worth of items and cash.
It’s a $100 loss to the store.
But with the equation method, you can instantly conclude that:
y = ∫ (s eᵡ) dx = seᵡ + c = $100
The only question now is, are you getting your money’s worth ?
General Malaise — I’m for sure never playing Monopoly with you.
I still can’t believe I’m the only one to consider that a profit was made on the $70 purchase that would “return” some of the original stolen $100.
Therefore loss < $100
$70 worth of goods and $30 in cash, for a total of $100.
Haven’t read any answers yet, but my first glance says $130
The $70 of groceries was paid for, so they are not missing. What’s missing is the 130 dollars that came out of the register.
The paid-for groceries is a distraction. Eliminate them from the problem because the store has the money for them in the register. No loss in any way regarding the groceries.
Delete them from the figuring and it’s really simple.
How much came out of the register that shouldn’t have?
$130.00
The germane transaction was the theft of the 100 dollars. That is all the value that was lost by the merchant and all that was gained by the thief.
Again- I have a 100-dollar bill and 10 ten-dollar bills in my register. I have 100 1-dollar cans of soda for sale. In total, with cash and inventory, I have $300.
While I wasn’t looking, some dude swiped the 100-dollar bill. I now have lost $100 dollars. I have a combination of $100 and $100 dollars worth of inventory= $200.
The thief then says, “I will take 70 cans of soda.”
He gives me the $100, I give him 70 cans of soda and $30 dollars change.
Now I have $170 in the till and 30 cans of soda = $200.
I lost $100.
The thief has 70 cans of soda and $30. He gained $100.
The question to ask is-
If the thief leaves the store with 70 bucks worth of stuff and 30 bucks cash, how could the merchant be losing more than that?
Where would it be, and who has it?
Agree with AbigailAdams and BFH’s breakdown of the situation. Store lost a 100 dollars.
What you’re missing is the actual total of this problem is $200.
The loss of the $100 bill
And the presentation of a $100 bill.
Out of those transactions – theft and purchase, the store is completely out the difference between the $200 and the price of the groceries.
While he is only up $100 in goods and money, the store is still missing the original $100 bill and the $30 change
Y’all are missing the point. The point is: “Free at last, free at last!”
Ok. I think I realize my mistake.
The missing #30 is within the stolen $100 that’s back in the register.
My bad. I’m wrong. You’re right.
The next one I posted is even more of a head scratcher.
I was pondering this all day wondering what the catch might be. I know there are laws against receiving stolen items, but I’ve never heard of any law against receiving stolen cash, unless you’re somehow laundering the ill got gain, like drug money. To me that means the purchase is completely legal for the vender and therefore not out any additional money beyond the initial theft.
That said, what if the clerk recognized the bandit and knew what the jerk was buying and could quickly raise the price of said beverage before the thief made it to the check-out. The clerk could temporarily over-charge the bandit and make back some of the stolen money. I imagine that would be against some kind of state law about false pricing, but the clerk is only targeting the thief so only a New York grand jury would seek an indictment.
Just thought I’d toss this possibility in there for sh*ts and giggles.
Wut?
It was not stipulated if the $70 in merch he purchased was taxable?
If it was alcohol, it not only has a high mark-up, it’s taxed as well.
Therefore the big guy & big government not only got their 10%, they BENEFITTED from the initial theft.
The government thieves taxed the individual thieves for their cut!
Bwahahaha!
Question: Who was the BIGGER ASSHOLE!
I know my answer…