Because you arbitrarily set your conditions so you would get the answer you wanted by putting two random constants into your equation, an equation which I might add does not correspond even roughly to any model of taxation that actually exists.

Is it that you thought that no one with the slightest numerical experience would read this?

My best theory is that you simply don't understand quantitative reasoning at all. "I'll just make up some numbers and an equation with no justification at all, and then I'm going to use this to make wild claims!"

I read your article on Condorcet and that adds considerable weight to that second view. In that article, you bring up a distorted version of Arrow's Theorem to "prove" that Condorcet voting is "logically untenable" (you charmingly misuse the phrase reductio ad absurdum but don't actually display any contradiction at all).

Generally, articles which say, "I have discovered a flaw in this 700-year-old system that no one else has!" are almost certainly false. It's particularly laughable in your case, since Condorcet himself discussed the problem you seem to think you invented - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox

I suggest reading this article: https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740