MYTH: Without help from a pension, you have zero chance of retiring well.

It's true that baby boomers will get far less financial help from pensions than their parents did. Seeking to cut the cost of providing retirement benefits, more and more companies are dropping or freezing their traditional plans - the ones that gave you a guaranteed monthly income for the rest of your life - leaving you with retirement accounts like 401(k)s that you have to fund and manage. In 2005 only one in 10 private-sector employees was covered solely by a defined-benefit plan, compared with 37% in 1985, while the percentage of employees with 401(k) plans jumped to 63% from 28%.

But the truth is, the defined-benefit pension was never a fabulous deal for most workers. Because the traditional pension is designed to reward longtime employees, the size of the pension depended in large part on how long you stayed with your employer. So if you switched jobs a few times during your career, as most people do, you lost most of the benefit. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI), last year the average annual pension payout for those age 65 and older came to just $10,902. Because it's portable, a 401(k) allows you to have a normal, 21st- century flexible career and still put away enough to fund a more comfortable retirement.

Social Security isn't going the way of the LP record soon. Sure, the headlines are alarming. In just 10 years the cost of Social Security benefits will outstrip the amount that workers pay into the system, according to government studies. And by 2041 the Social Security trust fund reserves will run out unless Washington gets around to addressing the problem. But that doesn't mean Social Security will shut down. Enough new money will continue to flow into the program from payroll taxes to fund 70% or 75% of scheduled benefits until 2081. And with a few reforms, Social Security could continue to pay full benefits.

The real issue is how big a full benefit will be. "Most Americans think that Social Security will replace more of their income than it really does," says Dallas Salisbury, president of EBRI. For the average retiree, Social Security currently covers only 39% of pre-retirement income; and if you earn more than the maximum taxable amount ($97,500 this year), Social Security will replace just 26%, on average, of the income you earned on the job. And those percentages will drop over the next 20 years to 33% and 20%, respectively. That's largely because Medicare Part B premiums, which are deducted from your Social Security check, are increasing at a faster rate than your benefit's annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Cross a stock market Armageddon off your list of fears. No question, the retirement of tens of millions of boomers in the coming decades will have a major impact on everything from health care (count on surging demand) to real estate (good-bye suburbs, hello beach house). And, the thinking goes, the generation that loaded up on stocks as they saved for retirement will crash the market once they sell those shares to pay for retirement.

Here's why that's not true. Stock ownership is extremely concentrated among the very highest income brackets - those in the top 10% hold 58% of financial assets, according to a 2006 study by the Government Accountability Office. These wealthy investors are unlikely to be so strapped for cash that they have to sell their shares in a hurry. Instead, most affluent families intend to preserve assets for their heirs. Moreover, many baby boomers plan to stay in the work force longer than an earlier generation did, even into retirement, which would further reduce the need to sell shares abruptly.

MYTH: Now that 401(k)s are your only retirement plan, you're bound to really screw things up.

It's true that if you set out to make a colossal mess of your 401(k), no one is going to stop you. You can cash out when you quit or borrow once too often. And now there's no longer a pension sponsor taking responsibility for paying you a certain benefit no matter what; all the investment risk falls to you. But you're about to get a lot more help if you want it. An increasing number of plans will give you investment advice or even account management. And when you start a job, your employer may automatically enroll you in the 401(k), raise your contribution level each year and direct your money into diversified investments such as life-cycle or target-date funds, unless you opt out. All of which means that even if you never make an independent investing decision, you can nevertheless wind up with a decent portfolio.

Still, you can probably do better with just a little effort. For starters, you should try to save the max ($15,500 this year) rather than the 6% or so of salary that many plans set as a default level. And while target funds work well, it's not hard to design a customized mix that suits your goals and risk tolerance.

Unless you expect your children to support you in retirement, stop thinking like an all-nuturing parent. When you have kids, it's only natural to believe that college needs are more pressing than your far more distant retirement. A recent survey by the College Savings Foundation found that 53% of parents consider college savings their top priority, ahead of retirement or a house. Problem is, this kind of thinking can lead you to pass up a big weapon: the power of compounding over time. Save $100 a month from age 25 to 35, then stop and let the money grow. You'll have $182,000 in 30 years. Wait until you turn 45 to start saving and you'll have to put away $315 a month for 20 years to end up with the same amount. Then too, if you come up short when it's time to pay for college, you (and your kids) can get help from loans and grants. You can't apply for a retirement scholarship at age 65.

That doesn't mean you should give up entirely on saving for college or other goals. Just make putting away money for retirement your top priority. As for college, don't assume you have to save enough to pay the full price tag - for most families, a reasonable goal is to save for a third of the costs and make up the rest through financial aid, loans and your income when classes start and the bills roll in.

Treating your house as the ultimate retirement insurance is an easy trap to fall into. Even with the housing market in the doldrums, the five-year real estate bull market has likely left you feeling house-rich. As recently as May, a survey of affluent boomers by financial adviser Bell Investments Advisors found that nearly 70% were relying on their homes as a retirement asset. Question is, will the strategy work? The answer is, not that well.

Why? Because it's hard to eat out on your home equity. You have to live somewhere. To turn your equity into cash, you can sell and then rent, move to a cheaper area or downsize. Most retirees prefer to stay put. The best way to look at your house is as a place to live, not a retirement account. So in the years leading up to retirement, don't overinvest in it with the idea that you can get that money out later. Keep your mortgage and other housing expenses to no more than 28% of your income, and don't prepay your mortgage instead of saving for retirement.

True, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Debt is a problem facing a growing number of seniors. In 2004 (the latest data available), households headed by someone 75 or older carrying debt loads jumped to 40.3%, up from 29% in 2001, according to EBRI. The average debt amount climbed to $20,234 vs. just $9,549 previously.

If you don't cut your debt load while you're still working, says Marilyn Dimitroff, a financial adviser in Bloomfield, Michigan, you will face the worst possible scenario: a retirement saddled with mounting debt and only a limited income to repay it. Don't let that happen to you. Before you tap your home equity to build a spa in your basement or finance your around-the-world trip on a credit card, remember that it gets harder to pay off debts, not easier.

Wouldn't it be great to call it a career in your fifties and spend the second half of your life doing whatever you want - with no money worries to get in the way? For many Americans that's the dream. Yet when you consider how much you have to overcome to retire early, that dream looks more like wishful thinking. You need a portfolio big enough to support you for some 30 to 40 years. You won't qualify for Medicare until age 65, and full Social Security benefits don't kick in until at least age 66. The only way to pull off this feat is through prodigious saving - at least a third of your take-home pay.

Still, this isn't a bad myth to strive to make true. With four out of 10 workers forced to leave their jobs sooner than planned because of layoffs, health problems or to care for an ailing relative, it's hard to go wrong by saving and investing for the goal of an early exit date. If you choose to work longer, you'll have that much more secure an eventual retirement.

A million dollars has long been the retirement portfolio gold standard, and why not? That's a rich sum. But let's get the bad news out of the way. If you earn six figures and have no intention of living on an austerity budget when you stop working, you may need far more than $1 million to support yourself for the rest of your life. As a rule of thumb, you should plan to withdraw no more than 4% of your portfolio in your first year of retirement - otherwise you risk running out of money too soon. You can nudge up your withdrawals slightly each year for inflation. So if you want an annual income of $80,000 - the retirement inflow need to maintain the lifestyle of a worker earning $100,000 - and you and your spouse will collect $20,000 or so a year in Social Security benefits, $60,000 will have to come from your own savings. At a 4% withdrawal rate, that works out to a nest egg of roughly $1.5 million.