>> selling at a higher price is how investors "get out" of the game, but allow other investors to "take over the reigns", all without the company having had to pay out dividends at inopportune times.

No. Selling is how investors get out. No need for a higher price because they presumably got a return via dividends. If there's no increase in stock price, there will be no capital gains on the sale price either.

Reinvesting all the profits into growing is a phenomenon that became popular due to tax law. A dividend paying company can still make the choice to reinvest profits rather than pay them out. That will just mean a lower dividend than if they paid out all the profit to shareholders.

> If there's no increase in stock price

Then the value of the company (and the expected dividend stream) presumably fell, in real terms, because inflation is typically nonnegative.

There's also depreciation. Most assets tend to decline in real value while simultaneously inflating. Companies may have a period over which the value appreciates, but the evidence points to eventual obsolescence. They'll probably liquidate their assets and give one final dividend at that time.

Long term investors might buy shares if they expect high dividends in the future. Eventual profit, not immediate profit.

It's not a tax disadvantage if the expectation is that the bulk of the income eventually comes from dividends, even if that time is 10 years down the road.

> but how does that system allow for a company that re-invest all profits into growing, if doing so is a tax disadvantage?

Use your own money to gamble. Once you accept shareholder's money, you play by their rules.

If you are not paying dividends, register as non-profit.