This is not to deny that we pay taxes in indirect ways. For example, property tax can be higher in Texas than in California, especially for older properties; and anyone who pays rent is going to pay some surplus in order to cover property tax. Say that a person rents a studio in a major Texas city for 1500 USD a month. With a Gross Rent Multiplier of 10 (probably high for Texas; low for California), that is about 180000 USD of property and it will be taxed at around 1%, or 1800 USD, per year. This suggests that about 150 USD/month of that person's rent in Texas is to cover taxes -- that's considerable!
In California, a room in a house in a major city might cost 2000 USD a month; a studio might cost 3000 USD a month or more. Even if the nominal tax rate in California is the same as in Texas, for much of California's housing stock, the tax rate is based not on the current valuation but a valuation from the time of sale -- which can be many decades ago. Instead of paying 10% of their rent to cover taxes, a person in California might be paying much, much less -- 5% or even 1%. Even when they're paying 3000 USD for a studio, then, they might be paying much less property tax.
However, a person in California paying 3000 USD for a studio is not better off than someone paying 1500 USD for a studio in Texas, simply because they are paying less tax. They do not have more space, more bathrooms, &c -- they are paying more for the same thing. The focus on tax policy ignores many other policy factors that overall contribute to a more manageable cost of living.
Here is a web site you can use to look up Gross Rent Multipliers: https://apartmentpropertyvaluation.com/gross-rent-multiplier...
Here are the analyses that the Reddit post that the article referenced are based on: