Yes. They gain (debit) cash and they lose (credit) the item. Since the store made a profit on the sale, it made a net gain.
Take your example a bit further. Suppose the item is in a box and when the customer later opens the box, he discovers the item is damaged. He returns the item for a refund, and the store disposes the item. Would you agree that the store has suffered a loss? And what is the net loss from the sale, the refund, and the disposal?
I have a store where each item costs me $10. I mark them up to $1000. My only customer is this one guy who comes into my shop and robs me every day. He always steals $100 from me. But then, he buys one of my widgits using $900 of his money and my own $100.
I’m told this means I’m losing $100 every day. I sure hope the cops catch this guy so I can stop losing money.
Verified.
However, I think I see where you are going. You are speaking of “showing a loss” as in accounting or bookkeeping which I stated above was part of the ambiguity in the question. Sure, they might show a $70 loss but what did they really lose? They lost one item with a price tag on it of $70—we know nothing more about the true value of the item or the cost to the store, either purchase cost or expected profit and if that lost volume can be replaced.
Yes.
Of course it matters if the money “came from” a sham where they just pick up your own money and drop it back in the drawer. You would agree that there is no real effect in picking up $70 out of the register and immediately replacing it, right? No different than taking $10k out of the register and immediately replacing it. (The register holds a lot of cash).
The fact that bookkeeping would show this to be something other than that merely illustrates a weakness in the bookkeeping system, not any sort of real measurement of loss.
Exactly.
Or even:
A thief steals $100 from a store. Then buys a $100 item off the shelf. Then forgets to take the item with him when he leaves. How much did the store lose?
But the store owner will find $100 missing (not $30) and will not find any item missing.
Your’e making a very common error made in the Facebook thread, which is that you’re forgetting money in fungible. It doesn’t matter if the thief brings his own money. It doesn’t matter what $100 bill was used to buy the item. It doesn’t matter, in fact, who bought the item at all, or with what specific banknote. The store will find that $100 in cash is missing, but will find the inventory is perfect and nothing is missing, because no items were stolen.
I’m actually now really fascinated by the fact you don’t understand this because I want to know why. It was impossible to follow the Facebook thread.
The item was not stolen. This isn’t debatable.
Imagine the thief steals $100, and then simply leaves. At the same time a different person purchases a $70 item with a different $100 bill.
You agree, I assume, that at the end of the day, the store will resolve the receipts and find $100 is missing, right?
Please explain why this is arithmetically, or in accounting terms, different from the original scenario.
Only to accountants faced with the practical problem of keeping books.
This is a hypothetical puzzle.
I acknowledged the practical exigencies of real-world accountants.
Depending on perspective, such practical exigencies can have limited relevance when dealing with a theoretical exercise, as I also said.
The bottom line is that the practical accountant’s answer is “100 dollars”. That’s how much is missing. That’s the amount that will be noticed. That’s the amount that they will feel, quite rightly and justifiably, is due back to them.
I don’t object in the slightest to a more theoretical analysis that tries to strike closer to an honest net accounting.
I just find bizarre a theoretical analysis that abandons the fully practical answer of “100 dollars”, goes into (true and relevant) theory in order to explain why a different answer is sensible… and then suddenly introduces more practicalities, after having abandoned practicality earlier.
Looking at the way this thread has progressed, I should point out that, obviously, you have given this matter better and more serious thought than many other posters.
I’m not replying to you because your theorizing is the worst in the thread, but because it is among the best.
Yes it does matter if the thief brings his own money. That adds outside money into the mix. The original problem is a closed system, entirely within the store. In any system, the net result is what is important.
You are speaking in accounting terms which is perfectly fine because there must be rules to govern these things. But it doesn’t always perfectly represent the actual loss.
Yes, money is fungible, but the mere act of removing and replacing the money makes no real world or relevant difference. Again, the $100 minus $30 is there to complicate and confuse. The thief steals $100 and replaces $70. He has stolen $30.
Let’s compare the original scenario with this one. Instead of ringing it as a purchase, the thief takes the item, but opens the register, picks up a $100 bill and immediately replaces it. Does picking up the bill change anything? What if he stares at it and thinks of picking it up, but doesn’t actually do it?
And finally, what if he steals the item, and then takes $30 from the register. How is that any different, real world, than what he actually did? You are taking the intermediate steps of the thief and assigning real world value to them when it doesn’t matter what those steps are. Only the end result is important. And if we are measuring loss, we look at what the owner had before the thief’s actions and compare with what he has after the actions.
It absolutely does not. The store’s situation will be the same.
If the thief uses a different $100 bill than the one he stole, the store will have lost exactly the same amount. All $100 bills are identically valuable. It doesn’t matter if the one that ends up in the till has a different serial number.
Suppose the register begins with $500. At the conclusion of these events, the register will have $470:
500-100+100-30
However, the reciepts will say it should have $570:
500+100-30
This doesn’t change, at all, based on which $100 bill is used, or who spends it.
It does change how the loss is accounted for, yes. If the thief does this, but then steals $30 and the item, at the end of the day, the store will find the register short $30 and inventory short an item:
Scenario: 500+100-30 -30= 540
What It Should be: 500+100-30 = 570
Nobody is objecting to how an accountant would view it. But the question doesn’t ask how an accountant should log the transaction. That is the ambiguity in the question, but you are taking it to be an Accounting 101 final.
Look at my post #109. In any real world sense, the owner lost $50, even though his accountant would say he lost $70.
Count me as another person who doesn’t get why this is supposed to be difficult. It’s not a “closed system” or anything like that. The store is out $100.
If word “riddle” hadn’t been included, presumably nobody would be trying to make this so complicated.
Would your answer be the same if the thief simply stole $30 from the register and also stole the item with a price tag on it of $70?
That’s not what happened, though. I know you keep talking about the item being “missing,” but it’s not. Him using that money to buy an item from the store is a red herring, completely irrelevant.
Ah, so it makes a meaningful difference what physical movements the thief makes inside the store in order to accurately account for the loss of the item and $30.
It makes no sense. You are out exactly the same thing in both circumstances, but the particular order the thief performed it makes a difference? What if he threw the money on the floor and failed to run it through the POS system? Different?
Yes, it makes a difference whether he stole an item or money. Those aren’t merely “physical movements.”
I really honestly not understand your POV here at all.
Indeed! So what did he steal? Suppose he was standing at the exit door with $70 in one hand and the item in the other and was contemplating which to leave with ($30 is in his pocket). As you say, his choice makes a difference. If he would have walked out with the money, the store would be out $100 (the $70 plus the $30). But since he walked out with the item, the store is out the $30 and the item.
Why does his “purchase” make a difference? I have no objection to calling it a purchase if you would like to call it that, but in real world terms, it was a sham, it was a theft, no different than shoplifting. It wasn’t a result of market forces. It wasn’t a decision to forego part of his paycheck in exchange for that item. He simply stole it. That causes downstream events which may affect the actual pecuniary loss that the store suffered.
The store is not out the item that he bought using stolen money. He did not steal the item.
You claim to be a lawyer, right?
Please read the entirety of my post: as I said, at the end of the day the till would be short $100. The loss of money from the register is still detected.
Yes.
The store would still show a loss of $100. In that case, however, it would show a loss of $30 in the till and $70 from inventory because “stuff bought and going out the door” is tracked at the register. That’s what all those pesky bar codes are about.
Absolutely. Are you seriously contending that the thief could not be charged with larceny of the item under the fact pattern in the question? He could say with a straight face that he only stole money, but he really purchased the item? Would the charging document be defective if the State insisted on proceeding on a stolen item theory?
Yes.
Anyone else want to chime in?