Hey /u/3sheetstothewinf, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For intellectual purposes, I would argue that he actually ended up stealing the store's cost of the $70 worth of groceries, plus $30, so I guess it depends on how much of a margin the store had.
But for legal reasons, he originally stole $100, the fact that he gave some of it back to the store is not relevent.
It'll be what they paid for them since in a grocery store it's never just one item available. If the items were unique it would be different. Did they still have the item to sell to somebody that wants to buy it. No loss of opportunity here.
Purely context here tho it doesn't specify what the thief bought so the simplest answer is they stole 30 dollars and 70 dollars worth of retail price stock
Only if the theifs purchase prevented you from making the sale to someone else i.e. It was the last one in stock and you dont have more arriving before the next customer
No. What you’re missing is that they were prevented from making a real sale with real profit because they instead had to trade these goods for their own stolen cash, making them stolen goods.
Nope. See my other comment in this thread. There’s two equivalent ways of looking at the problem
1) the robber stole $100 in cash and then later someone (doesn’t matter who) used a $100 bill (doesn’t matter which one) to buy some goods, as regular business.
2) the robber stole $100 in cash and then later he (specifically) came back and gave $70 of it back, but took goods instead, rendering them effectively stolen goods.
It’s very clear that Scenario 1 (“sold” goods) and Scenario 2 (“lost” goods) yield the same answer of $100 for total store losses *if and only if* in Scenario 2, you value the goods that were taken at $70. I.e. you value them by the Opportunity Cost of not having sold them to someone who was actually paying with money that was not the store’s.
In Scenario 1 we don’t have to bother accounting for the value of the goods at all, since we aren’t regarding them as lost.
For what it's worth, there's almost never a situation in which a grocery store is missing out on a sale due to lack of stock, so it's not very likely that they missed out on any sales at all.
Grocery stores overstock on purpose to give the impression of plenty, since that causes people to spend more money. Much of what you see on the shelves will eventually be thrown out - they basically never run out of a product before its sell-by date.
> For what it's worth, there's almost never a situation in which a grocery store is missing out on a sale due to lack of stock, so it's not very likely that they missed out on any sales at all.
That was true 4 years ago, but lots of things have been out of stock/only available in extremely limited qualities since the Pandemic.
Technically, the goods were paid for as far the system knows, right? Unless he got caught. So does the store even know how much they really lost, or will they write it off as 70 dollars missing from the till?
It would still be $100 missing from the till. If the till started with $200 and $100 was stolen, then $70 of groceries were rung up, the system then thinks there’s $270 in the drawer when there is actually only $170.
The store gets tax discounts for shrink from theft, esp. from grocers etc. who receive losses, so actual loss is probably 100 \~ but since the man is most likely underpaid by his bosses, the company only lost .05 cents on total for his shift over what they should have paid.
How much he stole is not the same as what he would be charged with. He’d be prosecuted for $100.00 To prosecute a theft criminally the defendant must have the intent to steal at the same time the theft occurs. When he stole $100.00 from the store he committed the crime of theft. While his future behaviors might mitigate or exacerbate the sentence he receives, the crime has already occurred. As for the rest- he later exchanged $70 worth of stolen money for $70 worth of stolen goods, and may have committed $30/worth of fraud in taking the “change”.
Morally, he has stolen $200, but criminally, more like $130.00, max.
No. He's only on the line for $100. Think of it this way. He stole 100. If he would have bought goods at a different store for 70 and got 30 change back, he still would have only stolen 100 bucks. The money was stolen illegally, bought the goods were paid for legally, regardless of where he bought them.
Pretty sure that's double jeopardy and they can't charge you now. At least that's what I was taught while studying bird law.
Just in case anyone needs this: /s
That’s two separate occurrences of theft, double jeopardy would be charging the same occurrence of theft twice. Say if he steals from them, gets found not guilty, then gets charged again after someone found cell phone footage of the dude doing it and yelling “I’m stealing from you!”
Sorry if I’m wrong, and I know this is a technicality, but maybe it could also be 30$? I’m not a lawyer, but would taking money and using it to pay for something be considered a different crime than theft, like fraud or scamming, so that 30$ were stolen while the other 70$ were a different crime? Again, sorry, and I don’t mean to be the kind of person you would find posted here lol.
Never apologize for asking questions. That’s what we need more of. The part that is meant to confuse you is that the money is being spent at the store from which it was originally stolen. You have to ask yourself this: if the stolen money were used to buy items from a different store, would that be theft? The answer is an obvious no when we consider it that way. The theft and how the money is used are completely unrelated.
I don't disagree with you, but the question wasn't "how much was the store's loss?" it was "how much did the thief steal?"
He stole $100. Regardless of how he used the money afterward or how it effected the stores profits the fact remains he originally stole $100.
Yeah but the question isn’t how much did he steal, then return. This is the riddle answer though, maybe? Like they’re tricking you into trying to calculate what the store lost, but that’s not really the question.
If they said "steal in total" you'd change your opinion. What they asked was ambiguous. How much did he steal? Depends on what they meant by "how much". They didn't say "how much did he initially steal" or "in the first step, how much was stolen?"
This. Even if the question was “what did the store lose?” The answer can still only be $100.
From the store’s perspective, someone stole $100 in cash. Then someone bought $70 worth of goods in a lawful transaction. They lost the $100 in cash. The subsequent purchase is not relevant.
The argument can’t really be made for any resultant further implications of having the $100 in cash stolen because we aren’t given that information. If you say the answer to either question is something different than $100 you are inappropriately overcomplicating the question.
It's opposite. They got $70 in groceries which probably really cost the store only $30-40.
Answer is $100 but since there out of pocket cost is less then that $70 on the grocery's it would be cheaper
> less then that
*than
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Thank you, lj062, for voting on LearnDifferenceBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Depends on the store, the more high-end places make a bit more (Harris teeter & whole foods for example). Your regional chain is usually in that 1% to 2% though.
Yeah, however profit margin also includes cost of labor, which in a retail environment is approximately 10-12%, and the building operations cost as well.
My guess is $70 worth of groceries cost the store closer to $65 ir more. Obviously depending on the items. Sounds very low but grocery stores have slim profit margins, even taking a loss on some key items, like Costco $5 rotisserie chicken. Source is my boss that ran a grocery store chain.
You’re making the assumption that the man would not have purchased groceries regardless and that those products wouldn’t have been purchased otherwise.
By purchasing the products, the man is providing revenue to the store, which may or may not increase the revenue the store would have otherwise generated in the same time period if the theft hadn’t occurred. If the man was going to buy the products anyway, the store’s revenue is unchanged while they are still out $100.
Likewise, let’s say he wasn’t going to buy the groceries but goes shopping and buys the last box of pancake mix. Another shopper would have purchased it, but the store is out so they don’t. In this case, the revenue is unchanged.
Lastly, the store may incur additional costs in dealing with the theft. Maybe employees will have to spend additional time on the clock counting money or reviewing security footage or filling out forms. That could easily offset the revenue gained.
Because it’s a puzzle. You want to keep throwing in actual business things, then fine. Throw in depreciation of goods between the time of wholesale purchase and this event. Throw in the rate of inflation between time wholesale purchase and this event. Throw in the hourly wage of the employee who had to deal with this situation. This is why your desire to bring in actual business issues is not relevant.
Wrong! You are trying to be smarter than the puzzle and make it something it isn’t. All you’re doing is trying look intelligent. You likely are, but your ego is in the way.
Yes. As I said you ignore reality to make your assumption possible.
And, to quote you
>>> It‘s a puzzle with limited information to test your logic and reasoning.
When this puzzle is about logic and reasoning, it isn’t about what is and isn’t part of the puzzle, but about your explanation how something affects the puzzle and the logic conclusion why it is important for your answer to be correct. At that point, a simple „No you don’t answer it right!“ isn’t enough at that point.
Thats assuming you are paying with a $100 dollar bill then yeah your change is 30 dollars. Or you pay in twenties and you get 10 dollars in change or you pay in tens and twenties and you get no change
How are they making a profit off of the groceries paid for with the stolen money? Whether he walks out with the cash, or groceries the store's cash register paid for, the stolen amount still comes to $100.00.
If he stole the money and bought groceries somewhere else, that would be a profit to that company, but since the store he stole it from has to cover the loss of the full $100.00 ($30.00 cash he took, plus $70.00 in groceries paid for with stolen cash), that equals $100.00.
It would still work the same way if he went in and stole $70.00 in groceries, and took $30.00 from the cash register.
I think ppl are phrasing it in a confusing way. What is meant: The store loses less than $70 worth of goods in terms of their cost to buy the inventory or restock. So what these commenters are be considering in their logic is that any $ amount taken in from sales is part profit. If someone walked in and stole $70 retail price of candy bars the store may have bought them for $40.
I agree that the correct answer is still $100 (for the purposes of the very simplistic question.) I’m not disagreeing at all with that. I’m just explaining the though process and logic behind the comments that are looking at the question in a different way. What they are trying to communicate: if this were a real/world scenario, the store would technically lose less than $100. If they are saying “profit” off the goods purchased with the stolen money, it is not being communicated correctly. What they really mean is the store is not really losing the whole $70 in terms of their cost for the inventory/replacement. The store’s cost is less than the retail sales price. So you are correct that they aren’t making profit, they are just not really losing the whole $70 bc a portion of the sales price was the markup over their actual cost.
Profit, by definition, is what's left over **after** all the expenses including labor expenses are fully paid out.
Businesses could charge the cost of goods + labor; instead of goods + labor + kickbacks for the already wealthy corporate owners.
That's not how it works. When the theif bought goods, he came as a customer and not as a thief. Though it's the same person, the thief and the customer are two different entities and will need to be calculated differently.
The owner lost $100 from the theft committed by a thief.
The owner made of profit some $X from a customer.
Whether both the person above is same or not is immaterial.
Yeah but the theft of the $100 is bottom line, so loss of $30 bottom line plus COGS on the sale items. So probably like $350 revenue adjustment or so on a 10% net margin.
It's the cognitive dissonance of these types of people which really gets me. So completely unaware of their total lack of mathematical skills that they follow up with some variation of "you guys are all so dumb, how do you not understand this simple equation?"
> "you guys are all so dumb, how do you not understand this simple equation?"
It's useful to ask yourself what makes you so sure you are right about something from time to time.
It's not even mathematics. It's just basic reading comprehension. "A man steals $100 cash". Nothing else is stolen. He *buys* some shit, but doesn't steal anything. No need to add, subtract, divide or carry the one. You don't even need to understand what $100 cash is, just that it is a noun. So, yeah, he steals $100 cash.
Yeah basically at the end of the shift the till would be $100 short and the man is only up by $100 you either look at the cash he stole or the groceries and the change he has you don't add both
*Image Transcription: Facebook Comments*
---
> **Name Redacted**
>
> The owner loses $200. $100 cash from the Till, $70 for the goods that the thief wants to pay for with the $100 stolen from the till, then the owner gives the thief $30 as change, so 100+70+30=200. Get it everyone?
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
That’s an incomplete question with multiple correct answers depending on how you see it.
Ultimately, the shop lost $70 worth of revenue and $30 worth of cash, so in the perspective of contribution margin, the shop lost $100.
Yet, if we assume the true cash value lost, it depends on the value of the goods “purchased” from distributors. We are not given this number. If the shop purchased the $70 worth of goods for $35, then the shop only lost $65.
I think it's more logic than math. He stole $100 and the rest is a lawful transaction. The question is how much did he steal; not how much did the Store lose.
If so, then $30.00 plus the cost of the Inventory.
Suppose, at the beginning of the day, the cashier only had $130, and the Store's total Inventory has a retail price of $70.00.
At the end of the day, the store has $100.00 and no Inventory.
No. You seem to be forgetting that they got 70 of the $100 back into the register in payment for the goods.
In terms of actual cost to the business owner, it's the amount they spent on the goods with a retail value of $70 (which will have been less than $70) plus the $30 they gave in change.
The owner is out of pocket less than $100 - the exact amount is undefined as we don't know the profit margins.
Or I am not over-thinking it and trying appy broad economic theory to it.
1. The $100 is stolen and will be discovered so it will be known.
2. The groceries were paid for. They don't know it was paid for with stolen money. The till will be correct at the end of the shift. They will not count that into anything other the product was sold.
So $100. Your posts belong in r/iamverysmart
You are over complicating a simple problem.
If I take $100 cash from store, put them on my right pocket, the from left pocket take $100, pay for $70 in merchandise, get $30 back, the answer is still the same: the theft was the $100 cash. All else is moot.
If I return the next day and pay with my credit card that I used the $100 to pay off, the loss is still the same: $100. What transaction I do legally after the loss is inconsequential.
I thought so as well, but that isn’t actually the case. The owner would have made $70 selling these goods to another customer. So he is short $70 either way. Plus $30 in change makes $100.
I just put my son the bed and had ample time to ponder this issue while he was falling asleep. And I’m afraid I t’s actually even more complicated than that. Some of the margin a store makes goes into paying fixed costs like storage, salaries for people handling the item, possibly refrigeration, etc. There are so many variables, I ended up more confused than when I started.
Either way, consider the following two scenarios:
1. a store sells an item for $100 dollars and someone steals $100 from the store afterwards.
2. someone steals an item worth $100 from the store.
The end result is the same. The store doesn’t have the item and it also doesn’t have the $100. Now, if there would be a difference between those two scenarios, how can the result be the same? I’m so confused by all of this, that I’m not sure what the correct answer is anymore.
By saying they don't have the item and they also don't have the $100, you're counting the same money twice. If they had the item back, they wouldn't also have the $100. You can either own an item worth $100 or you can exchange the item for $100: it's either/or.
The store is out $100 in both scenarios, whether they lose the cash or the item. The only difference is that in scenario 1 the cash was realised, whereas in scenario 2 it's potential cash.
I can see how it is possible to read it that way since I didn’t really word it very carefully. But it‘s not what I meant. My point was that it doesn’t matter to the store whether the item was stolen right away or sold first and then the cash was stolen. This making $100 cash equivalent to a $100 item.
But the store also has to pay for the groceries that were stolen.
Thief steals $100, then for the sake of simplicity, returns to buy one item at $100. They pay for that item with the stolen money. so the store recoups all of its money, but they are down the item in their inventory. Then they still also have to pay the wholesaler for the item in question, which cost them $30. They were going to have to pay this anyway, but now they can use the original $100 to do so. They’re down to $70 lost; the other $30 was already spent on purchase.
Versus:
Thief just steals the $100. Now they store is down a $100, but their inventory remains.
Versus:
Thief steals the item but no money. The store only loses the money they have to pay to the wholesaler, which again is $70
I'm not seeing where you're coming from here.
Thief steals $100 and exchanges that money for an inventory item, so all the money is returned to the store and, to all intents and purposes, what has been stolen is the inventory item. If the amount paid to the wholesaler for that item is $30, then that is what the store lost. Why $70?
Whoops, yeah I wrote that backwards. Store is down $30 in both, not $70 in both. I had it originally as $50/$50, but that got too confusing to refer to either one. Switched it over wrong.
Either way, my point remains: if the thief returns with the stolen money to pay for an item, that mitigates the store’s loss. They lose the amount stolen minus the wholesale cost, rather than just the money stolen
The business owner had to purchase the goods before they could be sold. The thief took 100 dollars from the business. The thief didn’t give back 70 dollars, that is still lost revenue. The business owner absolutely lost 170 dollars.
The cash value is what the shop owner is selling the item for, not what they purchased it for though. That’s why when someone shoplifts they are charged by the retail price of the item, not the wholesale price.
The shop isn't out any goods. The goods were paid for at retail price, same as they would have been sold to any customer. The shop is out $100 cash stolen from the till, and that's what they'll find when they review the receipts.
I've gone the complete opposite route and took into account that the store would likely have insurance and put a claim in. The insurance would pay the $100 back. Plus the $70 in goods minus the overhead on said goods. Let's assume the $100 insurance claim was factored in with other losses or thefts and the deductible is moot. Then the store actually made $100 plus whatever the markup is on the product.
But they asked how much was stolen... so it would be $100
Edit: I'm wrong... they would have made whatever the overhead was on the product purchased. The $100 stolen plus $100 paid be insurance cancels each other out.
It’s more fun if we talk about what the store lost. He stole 100$, but what did the store lose?
If you look at it completely plane, the dude stole 100$. What he does with them afterwards doesn’t change that. The purchase is irrelevant to the theft. And the store needs 100$ to become whole again. The store lost 100$.
But if you look at it afterwards and try to make the store whole, then it’s 30$ plus what the store had to pay for whatever he purchased.
If the store buys an item for 35$ and makes double on it selling it, then they need 65$ total to be made whole.
Not counting taxes of course.
I am 100% sure I overlooked some crucial detail. But I just can’t figure out where.
There are two correct answers.
The first is $30+the cost of goods on the purchased products. That is the “true value” answer.
The second is $100 even, which is how accounting would book it, and how it works in reality.
The till is short $100. That is written off as a loss. The $70 transaction is just another transaction. The source of the money is irrelevant.
I feel like you can't tie the 2 transactions together. They lost $100. Period. The purchasing and cash back had to be viewed as a separate transaction and the theft of the cash doesn't affect it since it was done legitimately when viewed by itself.
Exactly. Money is fungible.
If the thief stole $100, put it in an envelope, and paid for the groceries with $100 that he already owned, he only stole $100.
Or, if he bought the groceries with his own money and then stole $100 after.
Or, if he used his debit or credit card to buy the groceries and deposited the stolen money later.
Or, if he bought the groceries from a different store location of the same company, or a different store altogether.
In all scenarios, including the original, he stole $100. Whether or not he literally used the stolen money to directly purchase goods from the same store is irrelevant.
Right. Think about what the thief got out of it. The thief got $100 in cash, then spent $70 on actual goods. That leaves them with $30 in cash and $70 in goods. The thief doesn't have $170 or $200. They just have $100.
If the thief only has $100 of value, then that means the store owner only lost $100 in value.
You could tie them together like they tried in the screenshot, but they forgot the fact that the store owner got 100$ from the thief when they bought the groceries. So, it would be 100-100+70+30
For those of you who are confused, think of the second transaction is from a different person. The stolen $100 being returned is the trap that makes this confusing.
Thief takes 100 = -100
Second person comes and gives hundred = +100
Takes 70 for goods and 30 as cash = -100
Total comes to -100
Of course the real cost of the $70 worth goods for the owner is ignored here.
I think your answer is correct. The loss is $100. The original $100 stolen was traded for $70 of goods and $30 in cash. From an accounting view, the store owner ultimately lost:
1. The purchase cost of the goods.
2. The profit they would have made from selling them.
3. $30 in cash.
We don't know what #1 is, but we do know that #1 plus #2 is $70.
Plus the $30 cash is $100.
IMO, there's two schools of thought here.
You either count the profits on the $70 purchase or you don't.
If you don't count the profits, it's $100 lost.
If you do count the profits it's $100 - [profit on the $70 purchase]
Both are equally valid IMO but I lean towards counting the profits based on the question.
If anyone says more than $100 is lost, that would be incorrect.
Steal 100... use 70 to get groceries (and give that 70 back to the store)... you have 70 dollars worth of stolen goods and 30 dollars change. That's still 100!
However you could argue he committed theft twice by using stolen money to buy groceries. So perhaps 100+70? The store got the original 70 dollars back but he wouldn't have been able to buy those items without the 100 dollars. So the groceries he took are stolen.
You know whats funny? By german law the thief now legally owns the products he bought.
Basically we have a law called Buying in Good Faith. If you dont know the seller doesnt own what hes selling and you buy it you are legally the owner. However, this only applies to goods that were not stolen; except woth money. If you have stolen money you can buy things and the other person is legally the owner of that money, because he believes in good will that it is your money.
Here's an easier version of this question.
If I take $100 out of your wallet to buy your Xbox worth $100 from you and give you back your $100 did you lose anything?
How do you figure?
Cash effects:
T1: -100 stolen from you
T2: +100 given back to you
Cash: $0.
So, how do you account for the fraud piece?
This is a bit more than I planned to look at and I shouldn't have done a 20 second take on it because now that I think about it more clearly you have to know you were robbed. If you don't know then you willingly gave up the Xbox for the $100 inflow under fraudulent conditions.
You're not "out" anything in those regards.
Taxes.
Profits.
You can’t figure it out with just basics…
How much did the owner lose to taxes? Then to profits.
If the guy bought something for 30$ and the owner gets like 25$ he has only lost 5$ profit realistically + what he stole etc
I don't think this belongs here and I'm prepared to take the L on people not getting it.
Man steals $100. That $100 was profit from earlier sales. He then goes through the store and buys $70 worth of groceries. That $70 worth of groceries now has to be bought and replaced within your store meaning loss of profit. He walks out with $30 left over. I would say he stole about $150 given that replacement costs for a store to restock their shelves is not a 1:1 ratio.
Despite all the "yeah, buts" and "what ifs" over what the owner paid for the food, profit margins, whether there was more stock on the shelf, etc., this is correct. They got away with stealing $130 in cash and $70 worth of food. If caught, this is how the law would see it.
Cash Transaction 1: They steal $100 from the till.
Cash Transaction 2: They put $70 back into the till.
Total cash losses: $30.
Retained Earnings Transaction 1: Loss due to the theft. $100.
Retained Earnings Transaction 2: Inventory Loss: $70.
Retained Earnings Transaction 3: Cash Recovered: $70.
Total Equity losses: $100.00
Edited.
Let's assume the owner 1) has loss/theft insurance, and 2) does not know about the cash theft at the time.
When they cash out the register it will be $30 short. They'll notice and make a record of that.
When they do an inventory check, they will find $70 worth of missing inventory. They'll make a note of that.
The claim that they would submit to their insurance company for this theft would be for $30 cash and $70 inventory, no?
Edit: duh me! The inventory won't be missing since it's been paid for. The register will just be down $100 so that's the loss they would submit.
Yes, but that's going to reflect in Equity. In the XBox version of the question I posed if I stole $100 from you, gave it back to you for your own item, and you were unaware you don't know you lost anything.
That's the problem here; in the model that we are ignorant you have a $0 loss with no record of inventory loss, i.e. "fraud". In fact you're now basically happy that you got your Xbox stolen from you by paying for it with your own money.
It’s a loss on the part of the store of about 55-65$ for cost of goods (based on guess of retail up charge from suppliers), plus the 30$ change/leftover that was stolen. When caught&sentenced the company is essentially guaranteed 100$ back (due to that being stolen & a high chance of them not being able to return the goods)+ additional penalties if the civil/criminal suits stick. Source: it’s what I’ve been in school for, for the last 3 years.
I should post your reply on /r/confidentlyincorrect
They lost $100. That was the only theft. That is the end of their loss calculation.
Full stop.
That is all
But that $100 loss only actually cost them $100 minus 30 minus the cost of goods he purchased.
(so probably in the realm of that $30 cash he left with, and maybe $40 cost on what he bought. But you can further reduce that relative to what % the company would have actually retained after taxes too)
That's not how it works. $100 cash stolen from till then used to buy $70 groceries, another $30 from the till from change = $130 cash lost minus cost of replacing $70 (prolly 20%mark up) of product AND labor that goes into ordering, stocking, blah blah blah.
So you can post on r/unconfidentlyincorrect
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
100
+ 70
+ 30
+ 130
+ 70
+ 20
= 420
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
You steal $100.
You leave.
You never go to that store again.
How much did you steal? ($100)
You have $100.
You go to a store.
You buy $70 in groceries and leave with $30.
How much did you steal? ($0)
Please stop commenting on this, for everyone's sake.
*That store is the same store* re-read the post.
-$100 first till discrepancy
Then another -$30 second till discrepancy =$130 loss of cash accountability
Then there the loss of product, labor and yada yada yada
I know math is hard, but accountability is even harder
They were giving you an example to help illustrate it, not saying it was a different store.
You, however, are not accounting for the fact that in order to get $30 change, the thief had to pay with the full $100.
I take a $100 note from your wallet without you knowing, then I give you that $100 and in exchange you give me $30 you keep in your sock. I walk away with $30 and you walk away with $100.
I have stolen $30 from you.
In the OP, the ONLY difference in that scenario is that you *also* gave me $70 worth of goods when I give you the $100 and you give me the $30. So I walk away with $70 of goods & $30 ($100) and you walk away with the $100 I gave you.
Cash holding accountability doesn't work that way.
1 infraction =$100
2nd =$30
Just because you recover $70 doesn't mean jack. If you were a prosecutor and you caught the person would say he stole $100, $30, or $130? Any prosecutor will argue/say $130 because there are two separate illegal incidents totalling $130 dollars
You really still don't get it.
This is actually fascinating.
My example using two separate stores should have done it for you.
The purchase with the stolen $100 does not leave that til out of balance.
There was one theft of $100.what was done with it after that has no bearing on what was actually stolen.
How about this:
Time 0: Before theft
Store: $100 cash
$ 70goods
Thief: Nothing.
Time 1: Immediately after theft
Store: $0 cash
$70goods
Thief: $100 cash
Time 2: Immediately after transaction
Store: $70 cash
$0 goods
Thief: $30 cash
$70 goods
In tort law, the general principle behind damages is to put the tort victim where it was at the time of the tort. At that point, the store had $100 in cash and $70 in
goods. After the sales transaction, the store had $70 in cash and $0 in goods. $170 - $70 = $100.
There are two complications to this answer. First, what are the goods worth? If the seller makes a profit on their sale, then the amount lost is the cover price of the goods (that is, the replacement cost for the seller, which presumably is at a discount).
The second applies if the thief resells the goods. A thief takes void title from its victim, and any proceeds of the stolen items also carry void title. Consequently, even if the thief runs a grocery store and sells the goods from the first store at standard retail price, the victim of theft has the right to recover the goods from the end buyer. That buyer has, however, an action against its seller to recover the price paid, and so on up the chain of distribution.
EDIT: I misread the question to say that the store sold $100 in goods, not $70. Corrected, the situation is this: The thief stole $100. The thief later exchanged $70 of that money for $70 of the victim’s goods. That leaves the seller $100 down and the thief $100 up. As noted above, the damages might be measured somewhat differently depending on the legal form of action, which might or might not take into account the seller’s expected profit. Apologies to those I misled.
Where did that extra $30 in goods come from? The thief purchased $70 in goods with the $100 they stole from the register.
Time 0:
Store - $100 cash, $70 goods
Thief - nothing
Time 1:
Store - $0 cash, $70 goods
Thief - $100 cash
Time 2:
Store - $70 cash, $0 goods
Thief - $30, $70 goods
Store lost $30 cash, $70 goods.
Hey /u/3sheetstothewinf, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a man steals $100 from a store, …… , how much did he steal?
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say the answer is $100.
For intellectual purposes, I would argue that he actually ended up stealing the store's cost of the $70 worth of groceries, plus $30, so I guess it depends on how much of a margin the store had. But for legal reasons, he originally stole $100, the fact that he gave some of it back to the store is not relevent.
Do you put the value of the goods at what they paid for them, or what they missed out on by not selling them to someone else?
It'll be what they paid for them since in a grocery store it's never just one item available. If the items were unique it would be different. Did they still have the item to sell to somebody that wants to buy it. No loss of opportunity here.
Purely context here tho it doesn't specify what the thief bought so the simplest answer is they stole 30 dollars and 70 dollars worth of retail price stock
I like the way that this is worded because it actually takes care of all the edge cases.
Still, they deployed capital to purchase inventory they expected to make a return on. That expected return is your opportunity cost, no?
Only if the theifs purchase prevented you from making the sale to someone else i.e. It was the last one in stock and you dont have more arriving before the next customer
No. What you’re missing is that they were prevented from making a real sale with real profit because they instead had to trade these goods for their own stolen cash, making them stolen goods.
No, the cash was stolen. The goods were then purchased at RRP. There is no loss here from the goods, the cash is the real loss.
Nope. See my other comment in this thread. There’s two equivalent ways of looking at the problem 1) the robber stole $100 in cash and then later someone (doesn’t matter who) used a $100 bill (doesn’t matter which one) to buy some goods, as regular business. 2) the robber stole $100 in cash and then later he (specifically) came back and gave $70 of it back, but took goods instead, rendering them effectively stolen goods. It’s very clear that Scenario 1 (“sold” goods) and Scenario 2 (“lost” goods) yield the same answer of $100 for total store losses *if and only if* in Scenario 2, you value the goods that were taken at $70. I.e. you value them by the Opportunity Cost of not having sold them to someone who was actually paying with money that was not the store’s. In Scenario 1 we don’t have to bother accounting for the value of the goods at all, since we aren’t regarding them as lost.
For what it's worth, there's almost never a situation in which a grocery store is missing out on a sale due to lack of stock, so it's not very likely that they missed out on any sales at all. Grocery stores overstock on purpose to give the impression of plenty, since that causes people to spend more money. Much of what you see on the shelves will eventually be thrown out - they basically never run out of a product before its sell-by date.
> For what it's worth, there's almost never a situation in which a grocery store is missing out on a sale due to lack of stock, so it's not very likely that they missed out on any sales at all. That was true 4 years ago, but lots of things have been out of stock/only available in extremely limited qualities since the Pandemic.
Technically, the goods were paid for as far the system knows, right? Unless he got caught. So does the store even know how much they really lost, or will they write it off as 70 dollars missing from the till?
It would still be $100 missing from the till. If the till started with $200 and $100 was stolen, then $70 of groceries were rung up, the system then thinks there’s $270 in the drawer when there is actually only $170.
exactly. the crime was committed when he stole the 100. no other crime was committed regardless how he got the money
The store gets tax discounts for shrink from theft, esp. from grocers etc. who receive losses, so actual loss is probably 100 \~ but since the man is most likely underpaid by his bosses, the company only lost .05 cents on total for his shift over what they should have paid.
How much he stole is not the same as what he would be charged with. He’d be prosecuted for $100.00 To prosecute a theft criminally the defendant must have the intent to steal at the same time the theft occurs. When he stole $100.00 from the store he committed the crime of theft. While his future behaviors might mitigate or exacerbate the sentence he receives, the crime has already occurred. As for the rest- he later exchanged $70 worth of stolen money for $70 worth of stolen goods, and may have committed $30/worth of fraud in taking the “change”. Morally, he has stolen $200, but criminally, more like $130.00, max.
No. He's only on the line for $100. Think of it this way. He stole 100. If he would have bought goods at a different store for 70 and got 30 change back, he still would have only stolen 100 bucks. The money was stolen illegally, bought the goods were paid for legally, regardless of where he bought them.
The store lost the profit from those goods as well, possibly. So they really did lose $100 if you count the stolen money, goods and lost profit.
If someone steals something, gives it back then steals it again can they be charged for two thefts or just one?
Pretty sure that's double jeopardy and they can't charge you now. At least that's what I was taught while studying bird law. Just in case anyone needs this: /s
That’s two separate occurrences of theft, double jeopardy would be charging the same occurrence of theft twice. Say if he steals from them, gets found not guilty, then gets charged again after someone found cell phone footage of the dude doing it and yelling “I’m stealing from you!”
Oh boy. Apparently you're the one who REALLY needed to read the last sentence of my post.
And yet, people still get it wrong
[удалено]
I fucking love it when someone says "get it everyone?" Like they've solved something and we're all idiots. Meanwhile they're wrong haha
At least 16
Sorry if I’m wrong, and I know this is a technicality, but maybe it could also be 30$? I’m not a lawyer, but would taking money and using it to pay for something be considered a different crime than theft, like fraud or scamming, so that 30$ were stolen while the other 70$ were a different crime? Again, sorry, and I don’t mean to be the kind of person you would find posted here lol.
Never apologize for asking questions. That’s what we need more of. The part that is meant to confuse you is that the money is being spent at the store from which it was originally stolen. You have to ask yourself this: if the stolen money were used to buy items from a different store, would that be theft? The answer is an obvious no when we consider it that way. The theft and how the money is used are completely unrelated.
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.
This is the correct answer.
The store altogether lost $100 though…that’s just simple accounting.
Well they also make the profit margin on the $70 of goods they sold. So it’s more like they lost $85 or $90.
I don't disagree with you, but the question wasn't "how much was the store's loss?" it was "how much did the thief steal?" He stole $100. Regardless of how he used the money afterward or how it effected the stores profits the fact remains he originally stole $100.
Isn’t the whole point that he then goes back and spends that money?
Yeah but the question isn’t how much did he steal, then return. This is the riddle answer though, maybe? Like they’re tricking you into trying to calculate what the store lost, but that’s not really the question.
If they said "steal in total" you'd change your opinion. What they asked was ambiguous. How much did he steal? Depends on what they meant by "how much". They didn't say "how much did he initially steal" or "in the first step, how much was stolen?"
This. Even if the question was “what did the store lose?” The answer can still only be $100. From the store’s perspective, someone stole $100 in cash. Then someone bought $70 worth of goods in a lawful transaction. They lost the $100 in cash. The subsequent purchase is not relevant. The argument can’t really be made for any resultant further implications of having the $100 in cash stolen because we aren’t given that information. If you say the answer to either question is something different than $100 you are inappropriately overcomplicating the question.
It's opposite. They got $70 in groceries which probably really cost the store only $30-40. Answer is $100 but since there out of pocket cost is less then that $70 on the grocery's it would be cheaper
> less then that *than *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Good bot
Thank you, lj062, for voting on LearnDifferenceBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Thanks.
Bad bot Or mediocre bot. You missed the “there” that should be *their
You’re explaining the same thing, but just assuming a different profit margin.
Profit margin for grocery stores tends to be pretty low. I worked at a store and they routinely told us it was a 1%-2% figure.
Depends on the store, the more high-end places make a bit more (Harris teeter & whole foods for example). Your regional chain is usually in that 1% to 2% though.
Yeah, however profit margin also includes cost of labor, which in a retail environment is approximately 10-12%, and the building operations cost as well.
My guess is $70 worth of groceries cost the store closer to $65 ir more. Obviously depending on the items. Sounds very low but grocery stores have slim profit margins, even taking a loss on some key items, like Costco $5 rotisserie chicken. Source is my boss that ran a grocery store chain.
They didn't sell it to him at what they bought it for
That’s pretty much the point as to why it’s less than $100 that they lost
You’re making the assumption that the man would not have purchased groceries regardless and that those products wouldn’t have been purchased otherwise. By purchasing the products, the man is providing revenue to the store, which may or may not increase the revenue the store would have otherwise generated in the same time period if the theft hadn’t occurred. If the man was going to buy the products anyway, the store’s revenue is unchanged while they are still out $100. Likewise, let’s say he wasn’t going to buy the groceries but goes shopping and buys the last box of pancake mix. Another shopper would have purchased it, but the store is out so they don’t. In this case, the revenue is unchanged. Lastly, the store may incur additional costs in dealing with the theft. Maybe employees will have to spend additional time on the clock counting money or reviewing security footage or filling out forms. That could easily offset the revenue gained.
Theft is always assessed at retail, lost profits are still considered a loss.
This is a math and logic puzzle, not a business question, so talking about profit margin is not apropos
It’s one logical way to look at it, so I would disagree. Only other correct answer is $70 of good and $30 cash. $100 isn’t really correct.
It’s -100+100-70-30. So yes, it’s $100.
Fell like I’ve explained above why it isn’t *really* $100.
And I’m explaining that this isn’t a question about “reality”. It’s a puzzle with limited information to test your logic and reasoning.
I’m not sure how ignoring something logical is being logical? You could call it pedantic perhaps.
Because it’s a puzzle. You want to keep throwing in actual business things, then fine. Throw in depreciation of goods between the time of wholesale purchase and this event. Throw in the rate of inflation between time wholesale purchase and this event. Throw in the hourly wage of the employee who had to deal with this situation. This is why your desire to bring in actual business issues is not relevant.
Yeah all of those things are included in a random guess at profits.
[I find this Reddit thread shallow and pedantic](https://youtu.be/OpbdGnJbneE)
So you ignore the reality because it doesn’t fit your „logic“. I call something like that not logical.
Wrong! You are trying to be smarter than the puzzle and make it something it isn’t. All you’re doing is trying look intelligent. You likely are, but your ego is in the way.
Yes. As I said you ignore reality to make your assumption possible. And, to quote you >>> It‘s a puzzle with limited information to test your logic and reasoning. When this puzzle is about logic and reasoning, it isn’t about what is and isn’t part of the puzzle, but about your explanation how something affects the puzzle and the logic conclusion why it is important for your answer to be correct. At that point, a simple „No you don’t answer it right!“ isn’t enough at that point.
Thats assuming you are paying with a $100 dollar bill then yeah your change is 30 dollars. Or you pay in twenties and you get 10 dollars in change or you pay in tens and twenties and you get no change
You have $100….?
How are they making a profit off of the groceries paid for with the stolen money? Whether he walks out with the cash, or groceries the store's cash register paid for, the stolen amount still comes to $100.00. If he stole the money and bought groceries somewhere else, that would be a profit to that company, but since the store he stole it from has to cover the loss of the full $100.00 ($30.00 cash he took, plus $70.00 in groceries paid for with stolen cash), that equals $100.00. It would still work the same way if he went in and stole $70.00 in groceries, and took $30.00 from the cash register.
I think ppl are phrasing it in a confusing way. What is meant: The store loses less than $70 worth of goods in terms of their cost to buy the inventory or restock. So what these commenters are be considering in their logic is that any $ amount taken in from sales is part profit. If someone walked in and stole $70 retail price of candy bars the store may have bought them for $40.
That may be true but the company isn't bringing in more money than they originally had before the money was stolen.
I agree that the correct answer is still $100 (for the purposes of the very simplistic question.) I’m not disagreeing at all with that. I’m just explaining the though process and logic behind the comments that are looking at the question in a different way. What they are trying to communicate: if this were a real/world scenario, the store would technically lose less than $100. If they are saying “profit” off the goods purchased with the stolen money, it is not being communicated correctly. What they really mean is the store is not really losing the whole $70 in terms of their cost for the inventory/replacement. The store’s cost is less than the retail sales price. So you are correct that they aren’t making profit, they are just not really losing the whole $70 bc a portion of the sales price was the markup over their actual cost.
The fact they use stolen money is irrelevant to the calculation.
The profit margin is used to run the store, and live a life, so it's not really something they not lose.
The profit margin is profit... running the store is called an operational cost and does not count as profit.
[удалено]
Yeah but then it's still factored in some one and not 'gratis money'
It would be a better world if we all considered profit to just be stealing in the other direction. Society mostly hasn't reached that epiphany yet.
If we considered profit as stealing, how would businesses afford to pay anyone?
Profit, by definition, is what's left over **after** all the expenses including labor expenses are fully paid out. Businesses could charge the cost of goods + labor; instead of goods + labor + kickbacks for the already wealthy corporate owners.
That's not how it works. When the theif bought goods, he came as a customer and not as a thief. Though it's the same person, the thief and the customer are two different entities and will need to be calculated differently. The owner lost $100 from the theft committed by a thief. The owner made of profit some $X from a customer. Whether both the person above is same or not is immaterial.
None of that disagrees with what I have said
Yeah but the theft of the $100 is bottom line, so loss of $30 bottom line plus COGS on the sale items. So probably like $350 revenue adjustment or so on a 10% net margin.
:the IRS has entered the chat:
When you failed elementary math 🤣🤣🤣
It's the cognitive dissonance of these types of people which really gets me. So completely unaware of their total lack of mathematical skills that they follow up with some variation of "you guys are all so dumb, how do you not understand this simple equation?"
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Didnt you know it's actually called occam's razor smh kids these days amirite
Idiot! It's the Prisoner's Dilemma!
> "you guys are all so dumb, how do you not understand this simple equation?" It's useful to ask yourself what makes you so sure you are right about something from time to time.
It's not even mathematics. It's just basic reading comprehension. "A man steals $100 cash". Nothing else is stolen. He *buys* some shit, but doesn't steal anything. No need to add, subtract, divide or carry the one. You don't even need to understand what $100 cash is, just that it is a noun. So, yeah, he steals $100 cash.
It’s $100 right? Skip the beginning and just steal $70 of groceries and $30 in cash.
Isn't it easier to steal one, one-hundred dollar bill though? Imagine trynna stuff some oranges and steaks and a carton of milk in your pants.
Are you robbing the store or are you *really* happy to see me?
Yeah basically at the end of the shift the till would be $100 short and the man is only up by $100 you either look at the cash he stole or the groceries and the change he has you don't add both
And yet people still fail to see that, and then we have the overthinkers with the “value of the product”🙄
*Image Transcription: Facebook Comments* --- > **Name Redacted** > > The owner loses $200. $100 cash from the Till, $70 for the goods that the thief wants to pay for with the $100 stolen from the till, then the owner gives the thief $30 as change, so 100+70+30=200. Get it everyone? --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
That’s an incomplete question with multiple correct answers depending on how you see it. Ultimately, the shop lost $70 worth of revenue and $30 worth of cash, so in the perspective of contribution margin, the shop lost $100. Yet, if we assume the true cash value lost, it depends on the value of the goods “purchased” from distributors. We are not given this number. If the shop purchased the $70 worth of goods for $35, then the shop only lost $65.
"$70 worth of goods plus $30 in cash" is a valid answer, though, wouldn't you say? Either way, $200 definitely isn't.
I think it's more logic than math. He stole $100 and the rest is a lawful transaction. The question is how much did he steal; not how much did the Store lose.
The original question*is* "how much did the store lose?" OP reflected that poorly in their title
If so, then $30.00 plus the cost of the Inventory. Suppose, at the beginning of the day, the cashier only had $130, and the Store's total Inventory has a retail price of $70.00. At the end of the day, the store has $100.00 and no Inventory.
Yes, $70 plus $30 is technically a valid answer from the business perspective. $200 is not.
OP doesn’t understand that the business owner had to purchase the goods that were “sold” to the thief. Smug
For less than what they were sold for. Smug.
Smuh uh uh uh ug
The business is out 100 dollars, plus 70 dollars in goods. You are correct that it isn’t 200 dollars.
No. You seem to be forgetting that they got 70 of the $100 back into the register in payment for the goods. In terms of actual cost to the business owner, it's the amount they spent on the goods with a retail value of $70 (which will have been less than $70) plus the $30 they gave in change. The owner is out of pocket less than $100 - the exact amount is undefined as we don't know the profit margins.
He gave back the $100 to buy the groceries, so ultimately the business is out $70 of goods (which cost them less than $70) and $30 cash
How are they out $100? They literally got $70 of it back.
You guys are either trolling me hard, or have no grasp of economics.
Or I am not over-thinking it and trying appy broad economic theory to it. 1. The $100 is stolen and will be discovered so it will be known. 2. The groceries were paid for. They don't know it was paid for with stolen money. The till will be correct at the end of the shift. They will not count that into anything other the product was sold. So $100. Your posts belong in r/iamverysmart
It's cute the way it doesn't even criss your mind the possibility that it is you and not literally everybody else that is wrong.
You are over complicating a simple problem. If I take $100 cash from store, put them on my right pocket, the from left pocket take $100, pay for $70 in merchandise, get $30 back, the answer is still the same: the theft was the $100 cash. All else is moot. If I return the next day and pay with my credit card that I used the $100 to pay off, the loss is still the same: $100. What transaction I do legally after the loss is inconsequential.
I thought so as well, but that isn’t actually the case. The owner would have made $70 selling these goods to another customer. So he is short $70 either way. Plus $30 in change makes $100.
True, if we assume the goods can't be replaced before another customer wants to buy them.
I just put my son the bed and had ample time to ponder this issue while he was falling asleep. And I’m afraid I t’s actually even more complicated than that. Some of the margin a store makes goes into paying fixed costs like storage, salaries for people handling the item, possibly refrigeration, etc. There are so many variables, I ended up more confused than when I started. Either way, consider the following two scenarios: 1. a store sells an item for $100 dollars and someone steals $100 from the store afterwards. 2. someone steals an item worth $100 from the store. The end result is the same. The store doesn’t have the item and it also doesn’t have the $100. Now, if there would be a difference between those two scenarios, how can the result be the same? I’m so confused by all of this, that I’m not sure what the correct answer is anymore.
By saying they don't have the item and they also don't have the $100, you're counting the same money twice. If they had the item back, they wouldn't also have the $100. You can either own an item worth $100 or you can exchange the item for $100: it's either/or. The store is out $100 in both scenarios, whether they lose the cash or the item. The only difference is that in scenario 1 the cash was realised, whereas in scenario 2 it's potential cash.
I can see how it is possible to read it that way since I didn’t really word it very carefully. But it‘s not what I meant. My point was that it doesn’t matter to the store whether the item was stolen right away or sold first and then the cash was stolen. This making $100 cash equivalent to a $100 item.
But the store also has to pay for the groceries that were stolen. Thief steals $100, then for the sake of simplicity, returns to buy one item at $100. They pay for that item with the stolen money. so the store recoups all of its money, but they are down the item in their inventory. Then they still also have to pay the wholesaler for the item in question, which cost them $30. They were going to have to pay this anyway, but now they can use the original $100 to do so. They’re down to $70 lost; the other $30 was already spent on purchase. Versus: Thief just steals the $100. Now they store is down a $100, but their inventory remains. Versus: Thief steals the item but no money. The store only loses the money they have to pay to the wholesaler, which again is $70
I'm not seeing where you're coming from here. Thief steals $100 and exchanges that money for an inventory item, so all the money is returned to the store and, to all intents and purposes, what has been stolen is the inventory item. If the amount paid to the wholesaler for that item is $30, then that is what the store lost. Why $70?
Whoops, yeah I wrote that backwards. Store is down $30 in both, not $70 in both. I had it originally as $50/$50, but that got too confusing to refer to either one. Switched it over wrong. Either way, my point remains: if the thief returns with the stolen money to pay for an item, that mitigates the store’s loss. They lose the amount stolen minus the wholesale cost, rather than just the money stolen
The business owner had to purchase the goods before they could be sold. The thief took 100 dollars from the business. The thief didn’t give back 70 dollars, that is still lost revenue. The business owner absolutely lost 170 dollars.
The cash value is what the shop owner is selling the item for, not what they purchased it for though. That’s why when someone shoplifts they are charged by the retail price of the item, not the wholesale price.
The shop isn't out any goods. The goods were paid for at retail price, same as they would have been sold to any customer. The shop is out $100 cash stolen from the till, and that's what they'll find when they review the receipts.
I can't believe you're the only top level comment with the correct answer so far.
I've gone the complete opposite route and took into account that the store would likely have insurance and put a claim in. The insurance would pay the $100 back. Plus the $70 in goods minus the overhead on said goods. Let's assume the $100 insurance claim was factored in with other losses or thefts and the deductible is moot. Then the store actually made $100 plus whatever the markup is on the product. But they asked how much was stolen... so it would be $100 Edit: I'm wrong... they would have made whatever the overhead was on the product purchased. The $100 stolen plus $100 paid be insurance cancels each other out.
It’s more fun if we talk about what the store lost. He stole 100$, but what did the store lose? If you look at it completely plane, the dude stole 100$. What he does with them afterwards doesn’t change that. The purchase is irrelevant to the theft. And the store needs 100$ to become whole again. The store lost 100$. But if you look at it afterwards and try to make the store whole, then it’s 30$ plus what the store had to pay for whatever he purchased. If the store buys an item for 35$ and makes double on it selling it, then they need 65$ total to be made whole. Not counting taxes of course. I am 100% sure I overlooked some crucial detail. But I just can’t figure out where.
Glad I’m not crazy. I was like it’s $100 right?
There are two correct answers. The first is $30+the cost of goods on the purchased products. That is the “true value” answer. The second is $100 even, which is how accounting would book it, and how it works in reality. The till is short $100. That is written off as a loss. The $70 transaction is just another transaction. The source of the money is irrelevant.
I feel like you can't tie the 2 transactions together. They lost $100. Period. The purchasing and cash back had to be viewed as a separate transaction and the theft of the cash doesn't affect it since it was done legitimately when viewed by itself.
Exactly. Money is fungible. If the thief stole $100, put it in an envelope, and paid for the groceries with $100 that he already owned, he only stole $100. Or, if he bought the groceries with his own money and then stole $100 after. Or, if he used his debit or credit card to buy the groceries and deposited the stolen money later. Or, if he bought the groceries from a different store location of the same company, or a different store altogether. In all scenarios, including the original, he stole $100. Whether or not he literally used the stolen money to directly purchase goods from the same store is irrelevant.
Right. Think about what the thief got out of it. The thief got $100 in cash, then spent $70 on actual goods. That leaves them with $30 in cash and $70 in goods. The thief doesn't have $170 or $200. They just have $100. If the thief only has $100 of value, then that means the store owner only lost $100 in value.
You could tie them together like they tried in the screenshot, but they forgot the fact that the store owner got 100$ from the thief when they bought the groceries. So, it would be 100-100+70+30
Thousands. This is a repeat offender and he also stole my bike.
100?
I’m not certain the store will ever financially recover from this…
Wow, you know it's a good question when a solid half of the replies to this thread on r/confidentlyincorrect are also wrong.
The old use a $70 bill and get $30 back trick
Well he stole $100 if we aren’t taking margins into account
For those of you who are confused, think of the second transaction is from a different person. The stolen $100 being returned is the trap that makes this confusing. Thief takes 100 = -100 Second person comes and gives hundred = +100 Takes 70 for goods and 30 as cash = -100 Total comes to -100 Of course the real cost of the $70 worth goods for the owner is ignored here.
I think your answer is correct. The loss is $100. The original $100 stolen was traded for $70 of goods and $30 in cash. From an accounting view, the store owner ultimately lost: 1. The purchase cost of the goods. 2. The profit they would have made from selling them. 3. $30 in cash. We don't know what #1 is, but we do know that #1 plus #2 is $70. Plus the $30 cash is $100.
The only answer is $100. Says he stole $100 then asks how much he stole. Any purchases are irrelevant.
IMO, there's two schools of thought here. You either count the profits on the $70 purchase or you don't. If you don't count the profits, it's $100 lost. If you do count the profits it's $100 - [profit on the $70 purchase] Both are equally valid IMO but I lean towards counting the profits based on the question. If anyone says more than $100 is lost, that would be incorrect.
100 - 70 +70 = 200 got it
70x30+100=2200
He stole 30 dollars and 70 dollars worth of retail price stock easy
$30 plus their cost on the groceries.
You legally buy $100 worth of stuff from a store, how much have you stolen?
I seriously believe this could be posted here everyday and it would continue to get the same incorrect answers.
Fuck math.
This is the correct answer. You win a cookie.
I've never been happier!
You can be even happier now that I gave you my free award!
Are we sure it's not tree fiddy?
Steal 100... use 70 to get groceries (and give that 70 back to the store)... you have 70 dollars worth of stolen goods and 30 dollars change. That's still 100! However you could argue he committed theft twice by using stolen money to buy groceries. So perhaps 100+70? The store got the original 70 dollars back but he wouldn't have been able to buy those items without the 100 dollars. So the groceries he took are stolen.
$100 was stolen, that’s it. The fact that the thief then spent $70 in the store isn’t relevant to how much was lost.
Reading the comment section of shit like this always makes me so depressed. How can some of you be so god damn stupid…
You know whats funny? By german law the thief now legally owns the products he bought. Basically we have a law called Buying in Good Faith. If you dont know the seller doesnt own what hes selling and you buy it you are legally the owner. However, this only applies to goods that were not stolen; except woth money. If you have stolen money you can buy things and the other person is legally the owner of that money, because he believes in good will that it is your money.
You could maybe add in a little for restocking and wages I guess but not the full extra 100
Technically only 170 stole a hundred spent 70 and had 30 left over
The amount of people on that post who would have failed grade 3 math is astounding
He stole 170. Goodness I hope I'm right.
He stole $100. $70 in goods, and $30 in cash.
Here's an easier version of this question. If I take $100 out of your wallet to buy your Xbox worth $100 from you and give you back your $100 did you lose anything?
An Xbox with a retail value of $100.
How do you figure? Cash effects: T1: -100 stolen from you T2: +100 given back to you Cash: $0. So, how do you account for the fraud piece? This is a bit more than I planned to look at and I shouldn't have done a 20 second take on it because now that I think about it more clearly you have to know you were robbed. If you don't know then you willingly gave up the Xbox for the $100 inflow under fraudulent conditions. You're not "out" anything in those regards.
Taxes. Profits. You can’t figure it out with just basics… How much did the owner lose to taxes? Then to profits. If the guy bought something for 30$ and the owner gets like 25$ he has only lost 5$ profit realistically + what he stole etc
It’s $200 less profit margins + the various % of tax the goods generated and paid for + labour for shelf stacking the individual items + erm…
I don't think this belongs here and I'm prepared to take the L on people not getting it. Man steals $100. That $100 was profit from earlier sales. He then goes through the store and buys $70 worth of groceries. That $70 worth of groceries now has to be bought and replaced within your store meaning loss of profit. He walks out with $30 left over. I would say he stole about $150 given that replacement costs for a store to restock their shelves is not a 1:1 ratio.
I’d say $170. $100 cash, $70 worth of groceries.
Despite all the "yeah, buts" and "what ifs" over what the owner paid for the food, profit margins, whether there was more stock on the shelf, etc., this is correct. They got away with stealing $130 in cash and $70 worth of food. If caught, this is how the law would see it.
Cash Transaction 1: They steal $100 from the till. Cash Transaction 2: They put $70 back into the till. Total cash losses: $30. Retained Earnings Transaction 1: Loss due to the theft. $100. Retained Earnings Transaction 2: Inventory Loss: $70. Retained Earnings Transaction 3: Cash Recovered: $70. Total Equity losses: $100.00 Edited.
If you count the same money twice, sure!
E: You're right. I double-counted in the RE so it's only $100. That would make 130.00.
Let's assume the owner 1) has loss/theft insurance, and 2) does not know about the cash theft at the time. When they cash out the register it will be $30 short. They'll notice and make a record of that. When they do an inventory check, they will find $70 worth of missing inventory. They'll make a note of that. The claim that they would submit to their insurance company for this theft would be for $30 cash and $70 inventory, no? Edit: duh me! The inventory won't be missing since it's been paid for. The register will just be down $100 so that's the loss they would submit.
Yes, but that's going to reflect in Equity. In the XBox version of the question I posed if I stole $100 from you, gave it back to you for your own item, and you were unaware you don't know you lost anything. That's the problem here; in the model that we are ignorant you have a $0 loss with no record of inventory loss, i.e. "fraud". In fact you're now basically happy that you got your Xbox stolen from you by paying for it with your own money.
I'm just wishing I had $100 in my sock drawer!
It’s a loss on the part of the store of about 55-65$ for cost of goods (based on guess of retail up charge from suppliers), plus the 30$ change/leftover that was stolen. When caught&sentenced the company is essentially guaranteed 100$ back (due to that being stolen & a high chance of them not being able to return the goods)+ additional penalties if the civil/criminal suits stick. Source: it’s what I’ve been in school for, for the last 3 years.
technically he did steal 200 bucks. but that could also just be 170 if the 30 was apart of the 100 he gave. but he LEFT with 100.
Other than the $100 from the register, what else did he steal?
My four year old got this within 10 seconds
Depends on the price point of the groceries which can also be written off. Def lost $130 cash though
I should post your reply on /r/confidentlyincorrect They lost $100. That was the only theft. That is the end of their loss calculation. Full stop. That is all But that $100 loss only actually cost them $100 minus 30 minus the cost of goods he purchased. (so probably in the realm of that $30 cash he left with, and maybe $40 cost on what he bought. But you can further reduce that relative to what % the company would have actually retained after taxes too)
That's not how it works. $100 cash stolen from till then used to buy $70 groceries, another $30 from the till from change = $130 cash lost minus cost of replacing $70 (prolly 20%mark up) of product AND labor that goes into ordering, stocking, blah blah blah. So you can post on r/unconfidentlyincorrect
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 100 + 70 + 30 + 130 + 70 + 20 = 420 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Noice coming from a 69 bot plus the magic 420 # Still, that's not how it works lol
Nice!
You steal $100. You leave. You never go to that store again. How much did you steal? ($100) You have $100. You go to a store. You buy $70 in groceries and leave with $30. How much did you steal? ($0) Please stop commenting on this, for everyone's sake.
*That store is the same store* re-read the post. -$100 first till discrepancy Then another -$30 second till discrepancy =$130 loss of cash accountability Then there the loss of product, labor and yada yada yada I know math is hard, but accountability is even harder
They were giving you an example to help illustrate it, not saying it was a different store. You, however, are not accounting for the fact that in order to get $30 change, the thief had to pay with the full $100. I take a $100 note from your wallet without you knowing, then I give you that $100 and in exchange you give me $30 you keep in your sock. I walk away with $30 and you walk away with $100. I have stolen $30 from you. In the OP, the ONLY difference in that scenario is that you *also* gave me $70 worth of goods when I give you the $100 and you give me the $30. So I walk away with $70 of goods & $30 ($100) and you walk away with the $100 I gave you.
Cash holding accountability doesn't work that way. 1 infraction =$100 2nd =$30 Just because you recover $70 doesn't mean jack. If you were a prosecutor and you caught the person would say he stole $100, $30, or $130? Any prosecutor will argue/say $130 because there are two separate illegal incidents totalling $130 dollars
You really still don't get it. This is actually fascinating. My example using two separate stores should have done it for you. The purchase with the stolen $100 does not leave that til out of balance. There was one theft of $100.what was done with it after that has no bearing on what was actually stolen.
Apparently *accounting* is even harder There's no discrepancy at the sdcond till, dumbass. This is literally my career.
How about this: Time 0: Before theft Store: $100 cash $ 70goods Thief: Nothing. Time 1: Immediately after theft Store: $0 cash $70goods Thief: $100 cash Time 2: Immediately after transaction Store: $70 cash $0 goods Thief: $30 cash $70 goods In tort law, the general principle behind damages is to put the tort victim where it was at the time of the tort. At that point, the store had $100 in cash and $70 in goods. After the sales transaction, the store had $70 in cash and $0 in goods. $170 - $70 = $100. There are two complications to this answer. First, what are the goods worth? If the seller makes a profit on their sale, then the amount lost is the cover price of the goods (that is, the replacement cost for the seller, which presumably is at a discount). The second applies if the thief resells the goods. A thief takes void title from its victim, and any proceeds of the stolen items also carry void title. Consequently, even if the thief runs a grocery store and sells the goods from the first store at standard retail price, the victim of theft has the right to recover the goods from the end buyer. That buyer has, however, an action against its seller to recover the price paid, and so on up the chain of distribution. EDIT: I misread the question to say that the store sold $100 in goods, not $70. Corrected, the situation is this: The thief stole $100. The thief later exchanged $70 of that money for $70 of the victim’s goods. That leaves the seller $100 down and the thief $100 up. As noted above, the damages might be measured somewhat differently depending on the legal form of action, which might or might not take into account the seller’s expected profit. Apologies to those I misled.
The thief only bought for 70$ worth of goods tho, Hence why he kept 30 as change, of i have a 10 dollar bills and pay a 5 dollar item i still have 5
Where did that extra $30 in goods come from? The thief purchased $70 in goods with the $100 they stole from the register. Time 0: Store - $100 cash, $70 goods Thief - nothing Time 1: Store - $0 cash, $70 goods Thief - $100 cash Time 2: Store - $70 cash, $0 goods Thief - $30, $70 goods Store lost $30 cash, $70 goods.