How bad was it to be under the control of the Mexica?

Camilla Townsend, in her 2019 book ‘Fifth Sun: A New History of the Aztecs’ writes: ‘Each altepetl [city-state] that fell under the sway of the [Triple Alliance] triumvirate had to pay tribute wherever it was assigned. Often the financial exigencies were head-spinningly complex [she gives examples]... Those who fought back against the new arrangements tended to lose. Then they were faced with tribute payments in perpetuity that sent shudders down every wise chief’s spine: they were tasked not only with sending corn and beans, or chocolate and cotton, but also with supplying people to serve as sacrifices in the religious ceremonies of the central valley...
’Archaeological studies have revealed that people in the countryside outside the central basin largely continued to prosper. The “Triple Alliance” rulers had encouraged interregional trade: local markets sold such useful items as copper needles, jars of salt, and small bronze bells... There was no reason for life to change much. Only rarely did a recalcitrant local noble find his compound attacked and his lineage destroyed.’
It seems generally then that the tax/tribute burden for the majority of inhabitants of the Aztec empire, in areas living in relatively peaceful coexistence with the Mexica, was not ‘excessive’. That’s not to suggest there wasn’t plenty of discontent! Historians suggest there was more frequent rebellion and reconquest within the Aztec Empire than in the Roman Empire. See ‘Rome, Tenochtitlan, and Beyond: Comparing Empires across Space and Time’ by Walter Scheidel in ‘Altera Roma’ (2016) edited by John M. D. Pohl and Claire L. Lyons.