He's not better than Ferdinand, Scholes, Shearer, Terry, Lampard, Gerrard, Ashley Cole, or Beckham.
He can go win something or play in a big final first. Those players all did. Then we'll talk. International football is low standard football and everyone who watches these games should know it.
Some of those players were the single major reason their teams won finals. Harry Kane has never lifted a single team trophy in his entire life.
This “win something” argument is generally weak and especially so in this case. Some seem to forget football is a team game. Let’s have a look at the players you mentioned.
Ferdinand, Scholes and Beckham played together (partly as Beckham left - but Kane would of course win trophies without being a better player playing for RM and PSG). Those are only the English players and if you start including the top class foreign players they also played with you will quickly see Kane hasn’t got teammates remotely close to the same quality. Eriksen might have gotten in to some of these teams. Some of the other players could have been part players of those teams (like last seasons Vertonghen etc.), but none of them would have played any significant part. And the mentioned Vertonghen has never been consistent enough through his career to have been more than a squad player on average for Utd in those days.
The same is true for all the others with maybe he exception of Shearer.
Kane is at times so underrated it is ridiculous. On Redcafe there are now posters arguing Lukaku is the better player. Now - if he is better than the players mentioned I don’t know. Obviously he is not the most dominant player there is. If he loses that edge in and around the box he will quickly be forgotten (still a good player, but not special
as he is now). By the same token if he keeps scoring 20+ goals in the league every year he might at least be universally considered better than Lukaku when he turns 30.