So I read that thing Benji posted by that writer who I guess has a rep but I ain't never heard of him about Piketty having a bad case of the Marxiness and I really don't want to look like a dweeb talking about it in too much detail but...
There's already a word for Marxiness (Marxian) and using the former is like some surreal attempt at reverse slur reclamation since I guess the author is some sort of conservative flunky given Mandark and Drinky's reaction to seeing him linked?
Also the author keeps ascribing diamat to Marx when it's a product of concurrent and later thinkers (in particular in the USSR), but as Benji said, conservatives like to wrestle with Marxism-Leninism instead of Marxism so we'll just chalk that flub up to that.
Referencing the title of a famous economics book with your own economics book hardly seems like grounds for being diagnosed with the Marxiness, too. I recently reread an old college textbook on the history of the modern Middle East and it was essentially Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in terms of economic analysis (which I didn't notice when I first read it as a college student

) and even I wouldn't diagnose its author with a bad case of the Marxiness because of that. Or even a minor one, for that matter.
Marx's original sin of capitalism isn't "infinite accumulation" (income inequality), it's surplus value, and Piketty isn't at all concerned with that original sin as best I can tell. You can argue that talking about income inequality is a manifestation of Marx's original sin in coded language, but keep in mind that the Marxist definition of socialism is "to each according to [their] [work]," which implies an inequality of outcome.
As for non

things...
-Personal home sales are taxable capital gains, they just often come out to capital losses for tax purposes because homeowners get XBOX HUEG exemptions in the calculation of capital gain/loss on personal home sales (currently $ 250,000 per person, up to $ 500,000 for a married couple).
-The rise of pass-through entity income appearing on individual returns isn't distorting, it creates a more accurate picture of economic wealth. Private, closely held C corporations are legal fictions and treating them as distinct from their owners in discussions like this is the actual distortion. Piketty probably should have gone back and tried to approximate pass-through income from the days when pass-through entities weren't commonplace, but AFAIK he has no background in taxation and it might not have even occurred to him.
-America does not have "relatively few" households that go hungry "because capitalism has failed them." 14.5% are food insecure, and 5.7% experience very low food security. That 36% of households served by Feeding America had at least one working adult in them sure seems like a failure of capitalism to ensure people don't go hungry to me.
Anyways

@ writing all that, look at what you made me do Benji.