Hips Don't Lie... but Government Does

The defendant walked into a courtroom in Barcelona on November 20, 2023. Ten minutes later, she walked out $25 million (€27 million) poorer.

The defendant in question was Colombian pop star Shakira. After nine years of contesting charges of tax evasion by Spain’s national government and the regional tax authority, she finally pled guilty, agreeing to pay fines and arrears with interest.

According to its case in chief, Spain’s tax authority, La Hacienda, alleged that from 2012 to 2014, Shakira resided in Spain for more than 183 days each year. Under Spanish law, such a duration qualifies as full-time residency, triggering income tax obligations, even for earnings from offshore sources. Shakira countered that her concert tours and professional appearances abroad disrupted the statutory threshold, exempting her from tax liability in Spain.

However, with millions at stake, La Hacienda refused to let this fish off the hook. It marshalled over 100 adverse witnesses, including several celebrities, and amassed extensive documentary evidence. Faced with the prospect of up to eight years in prison, Shakira cut a deal… and a big check.

Taking the artist at her word, the coerced payment amounted to the seizure of her all earnings from the past decade. The court only saw figures on a check, but that belies the reality. They represented countless late nights in recording studios, perfecting pop anthems like “Waka Waka,” “La Tortura,” and “Hips Don’t Lie.” They represented long absences from loved ones as she travelled relentlessly from one sold-out stadium to another. They reflected rigorous early-morning workouts to maintain her signature six-pack and agility.

In short, the figures on the check embodied ten irreplaceable years of labor, ransomed away at the threat of incarceration, and all on an absurd claim that she was not paying her “fair share.”

But what exactly is Shakira’s “fair share” to Spain? Is it for the national health system she never uses, since she has private insurance? Is it for police protection, even though she employs private security? Maybe it’s for public education, even though her children attend private school. Could it be to fund a government in which she as a foreigner exercises no suffrage?

Obviously none of these claims applies to her. If nothing else, this case lays bare the coercion on which all government is based by penalizing her only because it could.

By no means should this incident be viewed as a case of Spain singling out a Colombian for mistreatment. Given that Shakira is officially domiciled in the Bahamas for tax purposes, it is equally reasonable to conclude that Colombia would also have pressed her for taxes if she were under its jurisdiction. Instead, this case should be viewed as an example of government's inability to entice voluntary contributions, so it abandons any attempt at persuasion and defaults to force.

Government exists only because society produces enough to justify society’s protection. Some historians imply that countries began when their governments were formed, but this confuses the chicken for the egg. The people come first; the state comes later, and only when there’s something worth protecting.

Thus, on this day marking 215 years of Colombian independence, let us remember that the independence for which the Republic was established, was for the people themselves. There are over 50 million people in Colombia, and though few will achieve the distinction of Shakira, all of them deserve to keep their labor’s fruits to the greatest extent possible.