Ok faggots lets see who belongs here and who doesnt

Ok faggots lets see who belongs here and who doesnt

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=aekiMlGQDLY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

$100.
This is stupid.

Question is too vague...your teacher needs some remedial education if this is his/her idea of "critical thinking".

$30

what if the owner marks his goods up

Is it E?

170 and you are the faggot

He made 110+, your all stupid

Only anon1 is right you fucking retards

He loses 100 that she stole, 70 worth of items and 30 that he gave back to her, so 200

-100
+profits made off of $70 goods
-cost of $70 goods
The change already cancels out.

130

...

She pays with the stolen bill, so subtract that, you dimwit, he loses 30 cash and 70 worth of items, so 100

the question operates under the false assumption that the goods the shop owner buys, are worth what he sells them for.

Chances are the goods she bought cost the shop owner roughly half of what she paid for, with his own cash.

A rough estimate would be closer to 100-(70/2)= 65.

I'm guessing the dumb bitch that wrote this question never owned or worked in a shop that sold goods.

...

No, he gets 100 from his insurance company for her theft and then earns 10 for the goodies, he bough for 60 and is selling for 70. Try to project math into real life, retard

Did you faggot even pass grade school?
you use BEDMAS:

>70+100*0.3
>=70+30
>=100

I swear I'm surrounded by idiots sometimes

Talk about obvious bait and overthinking

My autism is already maxed out bro.

he doesn't lose anything because he shoots that nigger lady in the head and gets his money back

5 bucks

Hah, niggers don't buy shop items with money. If this was a nigger, that money would be going for crack.

She dindu nuffin

And here's the fag that overthinks a dumb question and tries to be overly intellectual, showing off around strangers on the internet that skipped this part for the sake of keeping the main idea of the question. Congratulations.

damn u got me

say 30% gp,
70*1.3 = 97 aka 27 profit
100 - 27 = 73
loss would be $73.

-100
+100
-70
-30

they just lose the 100 u fuqs

im retarded, its 21
still $79 loss

This is wrong. She bought 70 bucks worth for items. Even if he paid less for them it doesn't matter because now the items are worth 70, try to buy them at a lower price and he won't sell them. They cost even less to make then what he bought them but it doesn't matter because in his store the items she bought were $70

Ok dummies,
she takes 100 dollars from the store
so the store now has 100 dollars left
she comes back and buys 70 dollars worth of goods
WITH THE STORES MONEY
SINCE IT IS NOT HER MONEY SHE IS TECHNICALLY STEALING 70 DOLLARS WORTH OF GOODS
and then she gets 30 back
so the store lost 100 dollars

Also the answer is 100. Basic accounting

*less

You can't lose what you never realized you lost.

>Not calculating sales tax

Where are you pulling the 0.3 from, besides your ass?

The answer according to simple math is 100. But the real answer is the store owner lost what he paid to bring in the stock the theif purchased, plus the 30 cash he gave her.

The question is vague, I think its asking the monetary value the owner lost,he lost $200 worth of cash total

If you're going on how much cash left the drawer it's 130

no

Case fucking closed, anyone who disagrees should be gunned down to not pollute the gene pool.

Basically correct. But the store lost the COST of $70 worth of goods + $30. It's less than $100, how much is dependent on profit margin.

Correct, but I think its asking for cash value lost.

C

Taxes

Then it's 100 because if a regular customer.walked in a paid with an unspoken 100 no money would be lost.

Then it is 100
200 is only reached if the questionwas, how much money changed hands

But -100stolen +100 same bill = 0
-70 goods -30 change =-100

Who the fuck pays 30% in sales tax? I'd say Europe but they already include the tax in the price tag.

47 Euros.

$30 in cash and the groceries, which are $70 in value.

You fucking idiot in court she would still be guilty of stealing the $100 even though she gave it back

Uhm, if you sell mostly to companies, you have to calculate taxes separately here. And give them to your tax company afterwards

i cant help but notice how poorly that question is written. am i overthinking it?

She stole $100 - so 100
She bought 70 with the stolen money, so add 70
Then the owner who was snookered and didnt realize she was stealing (probably a nigger) gave her 30 in cash, so add 30 for 200 total

the answer is 0 ERO you are not "out" something you gave away, he fucking handed her 100$ worth of stuff and money vut he handed it her so she didn't steal anything

Lets say the owner had 130$ to give her change ok

-So, Store has 130$
-*Lady take 100$*
-Store has 30$

-The lady buys 70$ worth of goods with an 100$ bill so...

-*Lady gives back 100$ expecting 30$ change*
-Store has 130$
-*Hands the lady 30$ in change*
-Store has 100$

Subtract the store start total with end total
130-100

Store lost 30$

I'm not sure if you're understanding my point that some user just pulled .3 out of his ass.

-100
-70
+100
-30

so loss is $100.

Count the original steal as being a debit from the store clerk. When the lady comes back in, it's a fair exchange of goods resulting in loss of merchandise but currency. In other words, he only lost money when the money was stolen, so it's $100.00.

>lets see who belongs here and who doesnt
protip: if you spent any time thinking about the answer you don't belong here
go back to facebook

If he is selling at cost as the question implies, his business is in serious trouble and losing 100$ in cash and goods are the least of his worries.

Realistically, if they purchased ad pieces sold at a loss to bait customers, he could be losing more than 100... if they're accessories that have a huge markup, the loss may be significantly less than 100.

You forgot the $70 worth of products...

Your question was also, if europe calculated taxes differently. And yes we do for company owners

Idgaf about your little dispute with initial user

lost $100, put the $100 back = $ 0.00
lost a $70 item and $30 cash =$100.00

30 dollars cash and 70 dollars in product

This guy understands how the world works... Op you could learn something you faggot.

Fucking forget all the sales tax

Were in Alaska

Stupid nigger works store selling fishing rods and bait right

Nigger has lets say 130$

Lady takes 100$

Nigger has 30$

Lady gives nigger 100$ to buy 70$ worth of shit
Nigger has 130$ now

Nigger gives her 30$

Lady has 30$ and 70$ worth of goods

Nigger has 100$

So she didnt steal the niggers goods and the money dumbfucks because she swapped 70$ for 70$ of goods so she always stole 100$ but changed its fucking form.

>but the end total is now 200$

Because 70$ worth of goods was added on to the equation so original 130$ plus 70$ of goods

lmfao you're a dumbass

Are you black?

elaborate
Are you a business owner in europe?

tbqh i guessed 200. do i have a shot at life? or should i live stream my suicide?

Assume the store has a $100 bill, a $20 bill, a $10 bill, and a $70 weightloss drug starter pack

Now the woman steals the $100 bill
>woman: $100
>store: $20, $10, $70 weight drug

Now the woman comes back and gets the weight loss drug
>woman: $100, $70 drug
>store: $20, $10

She gives the store back the hundred
>woman: $70drug
>store: $100, $20, $10

Cashier gives back $30 in change
>woman: $20, $10, $70 drug
>store: $100

The store lost the $20, the $10, and the $70 fat pills but kept the hundred dollars

>You're all fucking retarded.
The man loses a little under $100
He lost $100 - X
Where X = 70 - what he paid for the item she bought.
>fucking retards you don't really think he bought that shit for $70 and is reselling it for the same. You're all gayer than a barrel of dicks
kill yourselves

...

In court, they'd charge her for the value of the merchandise, the hours spent in the investigation like looking for security footage, accounting time, time spent speaking to police, and if allowed by the district, the costs associated with the trial if any

Implying I don't know that...

Fuck yea

Hence the dont over think it because like you (dumbfuck) if you want to really get in fine detail then how much did he actually lose because you'll never know how much he paid for that/those item(s)

Thanks for all the (You) s

don't tell me what to do you uneducated queer. go back to school

shutup faggot

The same logic goes if the item sold was a loss leader.
So the the man loses more than 100$ now you retard.

Even if he buys the item for 20cents from Indonesia, and is selling it for $1,000 to yuppies in Hoboken, NJ. The value of the item she is charged with stealing is still $1,000, not $.20.

lol'd

instead of "how much did the owner lose" its quicker to solve if you think "how much did the bitch walk away with" which is $70 of goods and $30 in change, so he loses $100. Even if you want to be autistic and take how much the store owner marked up the goods into account, he can still no longer sell the specific items that she got away with, not just that their gone. So instead of losing say, $50 in what he payed, he loses the $70 in potential profit.

>tl;dr $100

hey op youtube.com/watch?v=aekiMlGQDLY

>didnt even actually tell you to do anything just asked a fucking a question

that means she stole $1,000 in merchandise but he still only lost $0.20 fucktard

No way to know. What if he marks them down? regardless. you can only work with known information all else must be assumption.

LOOK DAD IM TROLLING

I think the main argument ITT is trying to define what the owner lost in terms of what he payed, or lost in terms of the value of the item

>DO NOT OVER THINK IT
Go fuck yourself

STORE LADY
cash / goods cash/goods
$1000 / 2000 $0 / 0
$900 / 2000 $100 / 0
$970 / 1930 $ 30 / 70

The lady gained $100 in combined cash/valued goods. The store owner lost $100 in combined cash/valued goods. But the store owner would be retarded to sell his goods for what he paid, so he more likely lost only around 50% of the value of the goods, so his loss is more likely around $65. But this does not account for other types of overhead (rent/wages paid/etc.) that cut into his overall profits.

TL;DR: The problem is not properly defined, so we don't know what the store owner's losses are, exactly.

No. He lost $.20 in merchandise expense and $999.80 in profit. Which no matter how much you want to deny it, is still a legal loss.

I run a drug store, trust me. Ive appeared enough times in court to theft hearings to know.

Never once have they asked me what my expense was, they only ask the valuue of the merchandise.

My chain charges $30 for security video retrieval, and a flat $200 in related expenses to the case, and $30/hr of trial related time if it gets to that, which it often does.

So they might steal $200 in drugs, but they get a court order to repay $500 or more

You guys are fags.
It does not matter that the same woman came back.
It dies not matter if it was the "same" $100.
He's out $100. End of story.

That is why the question states that you should not overthink it.

Just answering in a normal way would be saying $100

Answering in an overthought way would be saying "Somewhere just under $100, but we can't be sure HUR HUR HUR"

15$the fucking answer is 15$

Okay see preach it because i agree yes he would not sell it for what he bought it BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE IT SAYS

DONT OVERTHINK IT

bitch 25$

PEMDAS NIGGA

the awnser is 0 hes insured against robbery and we all are all witnessess that that crank hoe stole

The answer is subliminal marketing