Pretty much.

Stole -100

Dude comes back and buys the 70$ worth of goods with the stolen hundred, gets 30 in change:

(net loss at this time) = -100
Pays in stolen bill = + 100

Total = 0(loss or gain)

Buys 70$(worth of goods(assuming 70 cash is worth 70 as COGS to owner(it isn't))) = -70

Gets 30 in change from bill he paid with which he originally stole = - 30

Total(loss) = -100 to the owner or -30 if you don't want to take into account COGS and just go off of cash.

It says MONEY as in the cash number lost, not goods. I'm assuming cash money lost once he walked out the door, rather than during the whole scenario. Because at one point the clerk lost $100.. so going off CASH MONEY lost once the thief walked out the door.


Gives clerk stolen hundred for $70 worth of goods.
Clerk gives him back $30 in change.

The thief has $60 in cash


The answer is $60 dollars cash.


UNLESS it's counting the cost of the goods as well.

edit*

****, its 100 hehe sry men

You are either a REALLY good troll or you need to go back to basic math.
I hope it's the former but something tells me it's the latter.

He lost the money on the goods becausehe *paid* for it with his own money.
He then gave the thief 30 dollars as well.

The thief got 30 dollars and 70$ of goods.
The owner was robbed 100 dollars, gave 30 dollars, and PAID for 70$.
You are far too old to be this bad with money.

If I give you 70 dollars in exchange for 70$ of something. You are to be up 70$'s. Yet if it is *Your* 70's buying that 70$ of something, then you now have 70$ less. This is basic.

The confusion you all seem to be having is the idea that the money the thief is using for these goods, is His when it is not. If this was a different customer, it wouldn't be an issue, however OP's scenario quite literally has the goods paid for by the shopkeeper's own money. He doesn't realize it is his money paying for it, because he has been robbed.

You could say it's merely goods taken, but *money* was exchanged for the goods. The *shopkeeper's* money

Can we get a coma after the second "$100 dollar bill" so I know were not referring to Bill here... Jesus

Uhhh where is the $100 in this equation that the thief brought back in exchange for the $70 worth of goods and $30 cash?

The next great Misc debate.
Inb4 50 pages.

Lot's of different ways you can look at this. I would like to know the wholesale cost of the goods the storeowner paid to determine profit margin. Some miscers are focusing on the wording and disregarding the value of goods altogether. the question is not clear enough.

I say $200.

$100

I have $5 AND an action figure. Someone stole my $5 bucks.

Later some kid wants to trade $5 dollars for my action figure. I agree. I now I have $5 dollars but now I don't have an action figure.

$130. ******* steals 100, then dumbass owner gives him 100$ so he's -200$ in the hole but then the guy is like hm maybe I should buy some protein and buys a 70$ tub of ON platinum. Now the owner thinks he's oly giving him 30$ back but he doesn't know about the extra 100$ stolen.

A better way to look at this issue is to pretend that you are closing the register in that situation. It would still be short $100 at the end of the day.

Lol, as I said, dude needs to go back to basics.

Susie has 3 apples......

He's not bringing it back jesus.

Scenario 1
I steal 100 dollars from you.
I come back and give you 100 dollars. We are square.
You give me 30 dollars and a 70$ jacket. You've lost 30 dollars, but you're not doing this in exchange for anything, you're giving me these two things out of charity "eh may'be It'll straighten you up Enguin".
You've given up 30 dollars and something worth 70$ (but it itself isn't money). So you've only lost out on 30$, since I gave you back the 100 (you've given 100$ in value however).
In the OP's scenario (below), you're not doing this out of charity however.
Value was taken, the money wasn't returned, your money was used for a purchase. If someone steals your credit card, the purchases made in your name are a loss.

Now OP's scenario
You own a business.
For a 70$ Jacket, you are to receive 70$ cash. You have 100 dollars in your register, so when this Jacket is sold you are to have 170 dollars. If the Jacket is not sold you should remain at 100$.
However you do not have 170 dollars after selling the jacket because you paid for the jacket, when I used your money for it, you even gave me 30 dollars for using your money. From your perception the losses are minimal, but objectively you've been cucked.Except in this case your 5$ stolen is used to buy the action figure. So *you* bought the action figure. You paid yourself to give someone else an action figure. The Action figure isn't a loss you need to worry about because when you're the one who paid for it(in the case of OP's example), unknowingly.

Depends on if he has any manners. On a $70 purchase I tip at least $45. So the owner only loses net $85.

This is the same sort of pathetic mistyped riddle leaving out key information, or implies possibilities that were never intended, that that moron samsbolton comes up with every few weeks.

The owner lost $30 + the price he paid for the goods

Answer my question: What am I left with at the end of the day? 5 dollars am I correct?

You're still not accounting for 70. The 70 you paid is for the second amount of goods your purchase. This still doesn't cover the original 100.

100 = x + y + z (stolen)
purchase 70x = 70
100 - 70 = 30 (lost)
70 =/= x + y + z ( you lost again)

Dude is paying for his original loss meaning he losses 30 (change), 70 (first lost of purchased goods), 100 (stolen bill) = 200

30$ cash
70 dollars worth of goods

You have 5$.
15$ worth of value was in circulation (The 5 you had, the 5 you gained (which was yours), and the 5 that the figure cost). The person who stole from you gave0of their own money to receive that figure because you paid for it. Aka. Charity.
It was supposed to be you have 10 dollars (if not stolen from). The person who buys it is down 5 dollars of their cash, but has an action figure.
Since they stole from you, they're down nothing and you don't have 10. The money they should've lost to pay for the goods, is taken care of by you instead. You give the action figure for free instead of profiting why don't you give them 2 dollars with the action figure while you're at it.






In the original example given with the figure there is no problem. You only lose 5$. What you don't seem to comprehend is that in OP's scenario the Shopkeeper is the one buying the jacket. The jacket isn't lost, it's paid for by the shopkeep.

The thief walks out with $30 cash + $70 goods.

What is so hard to understand?

^^^edit: that

Not counting the goods lost, it's just 30?

-100
+100
-30

-70 (goods) = 100

So it's 30 or 100

depends if it's the 7th day of the week or the 8th day

Once that hundred was taken, it is lost forever. It can't be replaced unless you put the full $100 cash back. His register would still be short $100 at closing and he would be fired.

Trolling?

edit: actually maybe not if that is a dynamic to consider but I don't think that's what they were going for.

Ok think about it like this...

Theif steals $100 bill. He has a guilty consious so he return to the store and gives back the $100 bill.So far shop has lost nothing.

Theif explains that he need money for food. Shop owner feels bad for him and gives him $70 worth of food AND $30 cash so the theif can buy his kids xmas presents.

Theif leaves and his family have a great xmas.

So the shop lost $70 worth of stock + $30 cash. Total of $100.

If your till started with $200 and $100 was stolen. You have $100 in the till. He gives you $100 and you give 30 back. That's $170 when it should have been $270 in the till if money wasn't stolen to start with.

The thief is basically swapping the $100 dollars he stole for $70 worth in goods and $30 dollars cash.