It's more accurate to say that "bank depositors" are taking the hit, in the form of increased FDIC fees. Which end up reflected in lower interest rates for bank savings accounts. If you only keep a negligible money in bank accounts, then you aren't paying for this.
If you are keeping a lot of money in the bank, then yes, you are paying for this. But you are also gaining, in a sense, from the stability of the banking system.
This is also assuming that the sale of SVB's assets doesn't end up covering the full cost, and that the remaining cost is large enough to result in a meaningfully sized special assessment on FDIC member banks. My understanding is that neither of these outcomes are a given or even likelier than not.
So to play devil's advocate here, one good thing that does come out of bailing out depositors is that the employees that work for these companies can get paid. Therefore, they can use that money to spend on the economy. They can prevent stress from losing a paycheck. That has to count for something doesn't it?
At what cost? What happens if the next bank run happens before the FDIC fund can be retopped off enough to cover depositor losses, even at the old 250k limit? How are they getting backstopped? If they aren't, why did SVB's depositors get the special treatment? For that matter, who gets to explain to previous losers of money to the FDIC limit why they apparently weren't cool enough to warrant a full backstopping like these people?
