You know that when you don't take money from somewhere the person actually spends it to satisfy an even higher level desire, right? The difference in the level of desire satisfied is called additional prosperity.

Your comment is simply a variation on the broken window fallacy: If the window was not broken, the glazier would not make money. This only appears a valid argument until you consider the owner of the window also has other needs and wants. You can analyze the seen (glazier gets paid) but completely ignore the unseen (tailor does not).

It's easy to see how fallacious this is: See if your opinion changes on the situation if you find out the glazier is paying a commission to some rascals for each window broken.