I think your base case and hypothesis are fine. You could have made the step case (m+1) clearer, as follows:
base: n=2, > base case n=2 holds
hypothesis: Assume for some m, where m>2.
step case: Let n=m+1:
Need to show
LHS:
RHS:
We now apply the hypothesis
and can conclude LHS > RHS, i.e.
(for A > 0 and B > 0, if A > B than certainly 3A > 2B).
or, re-writing,
Done
Usually, in inductive proofs, you should be looking to reduce the 'n+1' case to something involving 'n' so that you can directly apply the hypothesis, then include that new information into the 'n+1' scenario and draw the final conclusion.